The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
what is wrong with not being interested in womens sport?

are you serious? its perfectly normal to not be interested in it ...plenty of people arent, which is why you dont see more money going into it
There are many things problematic with women's cycling and nobody has an obligation to be interested - I also hardly know anything about it, sometimes I watch a race here and there and the pure physical dominance of a very few riders on all commonly used profiles is a bit off-putting. But then just say "unfortunately I don't know anything about it, so I wouldn't invest in it" or something. To talk about some races like you know what's going on and it's just not worth it when you don't seem to have a clue is different.
 
The whole sport of men’s cycling is dependent on “other people’s money” in the form of innumerable state subsidies and subventions, direct and indirect. There are no swashbuckling entrepreneurs who built it all themselves, they are all beneficiaries of assistance from society as a whole. The offensive stupidity is in thinking that it is somehow stupid or illegitimate for those who benefit to have social obligations placed on them in return.
social obligations are taxes and obeying laws, everything else is made up in your head

any other actions of individuals are based on willingness to contribute more and those who do good for them...those who dont have no obligations to do so, which is why you cant enforce anything
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
There are many things problematic with women's cycling and nobody has an obligation to be interested - I also hardly know anything about it, sometimes I watch a race here and there and the pure physical dominance of a very few riders on all commonly used profiles is a bit off-putting. But then just say "unfortunately I don't know anything about it, so I wouldn't invest in it" or something. To talk about some races like you know what's going on and it's just not worth it when you don't seem to have a clue is different.
whether lefevre knows a thing or two about womens cycling is irrelevant to his business interests, not to mention he admits he doesnt have experience anyway

he might be just ignorant, which again is fine because its a business oportunity he is missing and there has to be another businessman who can fill the demand, only loser here is lefevre because a potential business oportunity is slipping through his hands
 
social obligations are taxes and obeying laws, everything else is made up in your head

any other actions of individuals are based on willingness to contribute more and those who do good for them...those who dont have no obligations to do so, which is why you cant enforce anything
It is absolutely normal for the state to place obligations on the beneficiaries of the state’s largesse. If the UCI, race organisers, teams or national federations want to be free from any social obligations bar paying tax, they should feel free to build a version of the sport from scratch that receives no subsidies, direct or indirect. They can start by constructing their own road network..
 
Reactions: noob
He has always been a special character. But something has happened during the last 6 months. He must have got dementia or a death sentence and practically not giving a f***
Began thinking he's some kind of (manager) star.
Happens in approvable habitat.

Just a matter of style and manners.
This spree is not going to end well for him. I am disapponted at the lack of reaction in cycling media world. In any other sport, he would be history long ago...
Won't people please be civil to the drunk misogynist who regularly bullies riders.
It pure Capitalism, for profit motive. The belgian Govt/cycling fed can start a national team to help grow the women's road sport and talent till it becomes viable for the the private sector to step in.
I feel like I would just punch this * in the face if he started talking this way in a bar within earshot. My god he is just the second most idiotic self absorbed head in the world.
* There's Trump.
It's not about whether he should build a women's team. I can understand PL if he thinks it's not worth it for him to invest in a women's team, it's the way he expresses his stance which makes it sound quite ignorant and derogatory. It's one thing to say "I'm a business man and there's not enough in it for me", but he sounds pretty much like "I'm simply not interested in women's sport". He doesn't even acknowledge Lotte Kopecky who's one of the best female riders right now, but it sounds like he hardly knows her.
oMG, another winner from him:(
He says he won't create a women's team because he isn't the "social welfare center".
These comments aren't just uncharitable readings of what Lefevere actually said, they're flat out slanderous and a good example of unhinged, wild-eyed, internet mobs at work.

Lefevere never said he "he won't create a women's team because he isn't the "social welfare center"" or anything like it.

He flat out stated he won't create a women's team because there aren't enough quality Belgian riders - he even states the team wouldn't need to be majorly Belgian but that it'd make sense to have some sort of Belgian core.

He mentions D'Hoore is retiring and there isn't enough talent coming up the ranks to create a solid team. He says he went to Trofeo Binda and no Belgian came within 5 minutes of ELB (it's true, first was Van de Velde at 53rd - I think they got that mixed up with the De Panne when he says nobody from his team made top-50 there - this was an interview not some text he had prepared).

Then he goes on that there needs to be developmental work done in women youth cycling a priori of thinking in professional teams and that Belgian girls need to be persuaded to take on road cycling.

On that topic, he goes on to say "And will due respect, I'm not the OCMW and that's not my job" - which is, of course, 100% true: the man manages a pro cycling team. Why should he be doing that work, either with girls or boys?

He even goes on to say that even if he wanted to do that work, which he doesn't, he wouldn't have the experience, the means or the qualifications.

It was a very sensible reply. There wasn't any misogynism whatsoever in it. Nothing against women cycling or whatever other diatribes were written here. At most a bleak picture of the state of Belgian women cycling but not an unrealistic one - there are two, soon to be one, Belgian rider in the UCI top-100.

Again, one Belgian rider in the top-100. Lefevere very correctly points out that he can't be asked to change that because he simply lacks the experience, money or expertise to do that job and is eviscerated by a mob of unthinking loons.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
It is absolutely normal for the state to place obligations on the beneficiaries of the state’s largesse. If the UCI, race organisers, teams or national federations want to be free from any social obligations bar paying tax, they should feel free to build a version of the sport from scratch that receives no subsidies, direct or indirect. They can start by constructing their own road network..
So why are they paying taxes?

One would think that this sort of argument - if one accepts state intervention on anything, one must accept it on everything - would stop being used after high school - it's understandable how sophisms like "if you support public entities managing lighthouses or firefighters, then why don't you support public ownership of supermarkets or farms" can still be popular there.

If you don't like politicians sponsoring sports events, cycling or otherwise, vote for those who won't or promise they won't. The idea that race organizers negotiating sponsorships with public entities means politicians should dictate what private individuals do with their time and money, in a form of slavery. reflects very, very poorly on your cognitive maturity. You only defend it because you can't, or won't, fully think of the consequences - almost everyone benefits from roads or whatever, and therefore almost everyone should be mandated to follow the whims of politicians - and I'm sure some would be less palatable to you than forcing people to finance and manage women cycling teams.

(my apologies if you're indeed a high-schooler; in that case please disregard this comment)
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It is absolutely normal for the state to place obligations on the beneficiaries of the state’s largesse. If the UCI, race organisers, teams or national federations want to be free from any social obligations bar paying tax, they should feel free to build a version of the sport from scratch that receives no subsidies, direct or indirect. They can start by constructing their own road network..
you are not wrong but let me ask you what disneyland country do you live in? yes on philosophical level it would be marvelous if people who benefit also gave back to the community

but you also know those things are simply on their conscience not anything else, would it be nice if lefevre started a womens team? yes absolutely it would be great

does he have to? of course not...and the beauty of this is that not only it applies to lefevre, it applies to me and to you and to everyone else and nobody can tell us what to do with our money and with our time

so what now? do you institute some "conscience tax" on rich people? or is it enough to be upset about it on internet so you can feel good about how great of a human being you are...you are better than lefevre, congrats
 
It‘s pure capitalism...
It‘s collectivism/central planning/mixed economy etc in the sense that private company owners pursue their own profits while being protected and subsidised by the state in countless ways - from municipalities paying for races to sponsorship by state owned companies, passing through sports departments providing stipends for potential olympians and grants to cycling clubs and development teams. Not to mention providing and then closing roads. Even the model of change you suggest consists of the state paying to create an infrastructure so that the likes of Lefevere can cash in later without having to invest now.

The state would be entirely within its rights to use its absolutely essential role in the business model of men’s teams to force them to run women’s teams, whether directly or by putting the squeeze on race organisers and the cycling federation.
 
There are many things problematic with women's cycling and nobody has an obligation to be interested - I also hardly know anything about it, sometimes I watch a race here and there and the pure physical dominance of a very few riders on all commonly used profiles is a bit off-putting. But then just say "unfortunately I don't know anything about it, so I wouldn't invest in it" or something. To talk about some races like you know what's going on and it's just not worth it when you don't seem to have a clue is different.
That's not what Lefevere did at all. Why are you making stuff up? Did you even watch the interview?

He wasn't writing an essay on women cycling or Belgian women cyclists; he wasn't answering a quiz question to name the top Belgian women cyclists, in which case your "ah ah he forgot Lotte Kopecky" could make some sense. He only mentioned Jolien D'Hoore to point out she's retiring and there will be even less quality. He didn't have to mention Kopecky to explain his reasons and drive his point.

His point wasn't that he doesn't invest in women cycling because he doesn't know anything about it or because "it's not worth it" - rather, very accurately, that there's a dread of Belgian high-level talent at the moment. One single rider like Kopecky doesn't change that.
 
lol “a form of slavery” is I think my very favourite stupid response. I’m sorry to break the bad news to the libertarian fantasists here, but you live in a society.

When the state for example places an obligation on people who set up a bar and take out a licence to serve alcohol to allow the public access to the toilets, as many governments do, that is neither slavery (again, lol) nor creeping communism. It’s just how modern capitalist states work, a complex and sometimes contradictory mix of subsidies, protections and obligations.

In fact every capitalist society that has ever existed has depended on the state doing all kinds of things to benefit and protect capitalists. It’s in the nature of the beast. All of the rugged individualist nonsense, “the state spends other people’s money” messaging has always been strictly for the rubes.
 
One thing I don't understand is why Lefevere is talking like he is the one putting money into the team.

I am just curious if the sponsor was to say, ok we're investing in a ladies team , what could Lefevere do about it.
 
One thing I don't understand is why Lefevere is talking like he is the one putting money into the team.

I am just curious if the sponsor was to say, ok we're investing in a ladies team , what could Lefevere do about it.
isnt he the owner of the team negotiating sponsorship deals?

at best he could be offered more money by a sponsor to set up a ladies team, but he certainly has the right to refuse or accept

i dont think it can be decided for him
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
isnt he the owner of the team negotiating sponsorship deals?

at best he could be offered more money by a sponsor to set up a ladies team, but he certainly has the right to refuse or accept

i dont think it can be decided for him
Why would he certainly have a right? He is not the one who is deciding where the advertising budget of a company sponsoring him goes.

And even if you are right, why should it matter to him to say no, if having a ladies team does not interfere with the operations of the mens one.
 
Why would he certainly have a right? He is not the one who is deciding where the advertising budget of a company sponsoring him goes.

And even if you are right, why should it matter to him to say no, if having a ladies team does not interfere with the operations of the mens one.
he has a right to refuse as an owner of the business, what is the confusion about, if you own a bakery you can decide what to bake - that doesnt prevent the sponsor from seting up ladies team even under same title sponsor perhaps, but obviously not with lefevre

i think the whole idea is that Lefevre himself would be setting up ladies team as an experienced and succesful manager, so he would also run the operations which he obviously refused

if Deceuninck decided to make a ladies team, thats perfectly fine within their rights, they can hire a DS and there you go
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
lol “a form of slavery” is I think my very favourite stupid response. I’m sorry to break the bad news to the libertarian fantasists here, but you live in a society.

When the state for example places an obligation on people who set up a bar and take out a licence to serve alcohol to allow the public access to the toilets, as many governments do, that is neither slavery (again, lol) nor creeping communism. It’s just how modern capitalist states work, a complex and sometimes contradictory mix of subsidies, protections and obligations.

In fact every capitalist society that has ever existed has depended on the state doing all kinds of things to benefit and protect capitalists. It’s in the nature of the beast. All of the rugged individualist nonsense, “the state spends other people’s money” messaging has always been strictly for the rubes.
Yeah, capitalism is basically a system where property rights are enforced and it's always been the state doing that.

You seem to be good at parroting canned talking points but not so much at actually engaging the brain to understand what people are actually saying. There was nothing even remotely "libertarian" about my comment and I don't even particularly oppose that sort of government intervention on women sports or whatever - sorry for not fitting the stereotype that can fit your prepared lines. Ooops. What now?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yeah, capitalism is basically a system where property rights are enforced and it's always been the state doing that.

You seem to be good at parroting canned talking points but not so much at actually engaging the brain to understand what people are actually saying. There was nothing even remotely "libertarian" about my comment and I don't even particularly oppose that sort of government intervention on women sports or whatever - sorry for not fitting the stereotype that can fit your prepared lines. Ooops. What now?
Sorry I can’t answer you right now, I’m too busy working as a slave
 
One thing I don't understand is why Lefevere is talking like he is the one putting money into the team.

I am just curious if the sponsor was to say, ok we're investing in a ladies team , what could Lefevere do about it.
He didn't. He was asked why doesn't his organization create a women's team and explained why. Anything else you made up in your head.

He even mentioned his company Experza sponsored a women's road cycling team (and still sponsors a cyclocross women team I think) - he's likely fully aware his sponsors can do the same.

 
Reactions: Sandisfan
He didn't. He was asked why doesn't his organization create a women's team and explained why. Anything else you made up in your head.

He even mentioned his company Experza sponsored a women's road cycling team (and still sponsors a cyclocross women team I think) - he's likely fully aware his sponsors can do the same.

Uhm, I don't believe that tone is going to serve you well in discussions here.

What should you start with? You first have to convince those women to become cyclists. I also don't have the experience, time, money or desire to invest if I don't know where I will end up
Is the quote above from Lefevere or not?
 
Uhm, I don't believe that tone is going to serve you well in discussions here.
People who flat-out misrepresent and invent stuff shouldn't be too worried about tone. I'm sorry if my bluntness calling you out displeases you - you'll have to deal with it though.




Is the quote above from Lefevere or not?
Yeah, and it's 100% correct. Obviously he doesn't have the experience, time, money or desire to be the one investing in getting Belgian girls to take road cycling seriously - as he says, he's not the OCMW. Nobody in their right mind would take exception to that quote.


Do you actually have any point at all here or is it this just wasting time?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS