The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
What would be a good thing? Since when making up and misrepresenting what anyone said to then make unhinged, angry, ignorant accusations is a good thing? How on earth will that "increase respect for one another"?
Well, I'm specifically referring to his addressing the media (in a frequently derogatory manner) to air personal issues with his employees.... Not what a group of random internet commentators are saying on a forum.
 
You didn't even watch the interview, how would you even know how he came across?




What does "talk like that" even means? He talked like he talked and was roughly accurate.

His assessment of the Belgian women cycling existing state of affairs was spot on.

Again, there's a single rider in the UCI top-100.

And even if he was wrong, it'd just be a disagreement over the current crop of female Belgian cyclists - hardly a reason to call someone ignorant unless you're a loon who believes the reason anyone can disagree with you is because they're ignorant.




Well, then feel free to do it yourself; instead of calling ignorant to anyone who disagrees with your views.






He never did that. You made it up.

How could he even say that when he's invested in the past (I actually think he still sponsors a cyclo-cross team)?

If you were actually an honest person, you'd admit to that. You won't.
Maybe he isn't ignorant. But it's definitely a demeaning comment.
 
Reactions: Koronin
I don't know the ins and outs of QS business relationships like you, so I am not going to guess whether this is actually the case. It is still strange for me that Lefevere would have the final word over the majority shareholder and the sponsor about the money allocation, but fine. Let it be.
what is strange to me is that you are unfamiliar with the idea that star (athlete,coach,GM, in this case CEO) have internal pull within organization

are you following any other sport? genuine question, because this is happening literally every day, the better somebody is at their job (and lefevere is very good at his) the more power they have to the point that even the owner wont cross them - owner who most likely is far more rich

there is absolutely nothing strange about that unless you are completely unfamiliar with world of sport
 
Well, I'm specifically referring to his addressing the media (in a frequently derogatory manner) to air personal issues with his employees.... Not what a group of random internet commentators are saying on a forum.
What do I have to do with that? Why bring this up to me? I have no problem with people criticizing Lefevere for airing issues with employees or whatever. How's that related to any of my comments here?

If Lefevere actually starts falsely attributing statements to other people and then use those made up comments be derogatory towards them, like the "random commentators" in this forum did, then I'll also criticize Lefevere for it if I come across it and am in the mood to do so.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
what is strange to me is that you are unfamiliar with the idea that star (athlete,coach,GM, in this case CEO) have internal pull within organization

are you following any other sport? genuine question, because this is happening literally every day, the better somebody is at their job (and lefevere is very good at his) the more power they have to the point that even the owner wont cross them - owner who most likely is far more rich

there is absolutely nothing strange about that unless you are completely unfamiliar with world of sport
Actually I can ask you the same question. I don't believe the Knicks GM has any pull with the owner on how the Rangers are run, for example.
 
Actually I can ask you the same question. I don't believe the Knicks GM has any pull with the owner on how the Rangers are run, for example.
how about Ronaldo? Cristiano that is...he decided he was done with Juventus, what did Agnellis do? they are far richer and far more powerful, billionaires...meant nothing, he was done and he was sold to Manchester

how about lebron? he is notorious of getting certain players signed to way better contracts than they deserve

lets not venture that far, how about Sagan? how many people does he drag with himself to a new team? like 15 lmao - and thats Total? isnt that like a huge oil company or something

if Pogacar decided he wanted 6 slovenians in his TdF team or else - what do you think would happen

how often does a new coach bring in not only new staff with him (that the owner has to pay for on top of paying departing staff) but also his favourite players?

stars have huge power because there is nobody you can replace them with and no matter how much you dislike it, you cannot replace lefevere with another guy, there is no other guy

btw i believe Dolan has been off the personel decisions for quite some time, other than being a celebrity owner i dont think he does any basketball stuff anymore
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
You are comparing Ronaldo with Lefevere?

I mean it's your choice, but I am not sure what is there to discuss of you are seemingly interested in having the last word.

As i wrote before, fine, let it be. You think Lefevere can tell Bakala where to do and how sponsors should spend their money. Fine. I think it's not that simple, but at the end of the day, there is probably little point in continuing this discussion.
 
You are comparing Ronaldo with Lefevere?

I mean it's your choice, but I am not sure what is there to discuss of you are seemingly interested in having the last word.
jesus im trying to explain how is it possible that lefevere can decide what does the team do with the money even tho the money are not his

but you seemingly cannot fathom stardom or you refuse to acknowledge that lefevere is a star in his position
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
There's nothing demeaning whatsoever about it. Demeaning to whom exactly?
For me much of it is in the names he mentions. He talks about female cyclists the way I would talk about basketball players - of whom I know nothing but the biggest names and I hardly ever watch a match. So I doubt he really has some insight in whether a female team is doable for him, he just doesn't care. And in part that's what he says himself, I give him that. But I find it derogatory towards the talent that is there, because he makes it sound like it's just not worth it because the talent isn't there. There are a few very good Belgian riders, Kopecky on top of them, there is some decent talent in youth, but also talent in cx that I think could make the jump. If you can change a male ex-footballer or a rower into a cyclist within a few months, I doubt you wouldn't find the talent on the female side if you looked a bit past van Vleuten.
(Thinking about it though I wonder how much Lotto Soudal/ QS is also in this.)
 
Reactions: Koronin
It's hilarious, for months the guy can't open his mouth without spouting defamatory shite about Bennett yet when a couple of forum users have a go at him you have weird fanboys crying out that they're misrepresenting his words.

No matter his reasons (as @Hugh Januss said, he could've just answered "We have no plans to start a Women's team at this time") you don't end your explanation with an "With all respect, I'm not the social welfare center, eh" without coming across as a ***. And for people trying to frame the reaction to it as political correctness because it's about women's cycling - it's a disrespectful way of talking in every scenario. If I'm the president of a local sports club and someone asks if we plan to do more for the basketball division and I give an answer that ends with social welfare center metapher, people would rightfully say that it was an unnessecary remark.

But yeah, he's just a loon living in his own echo chamber - and probably not all too surprising. One of the few DS that got through the whole EPO era seemingly unchallenged by the public or the sport environment itself - no wonder he feels invincible and has an uncontrolled self esteem.
 
Reactions: Pirazziattacks
I don't actually have a problem with Quickstep not having a women's team - just like I don't have problem with SD Worx not having a men's team - it's the usage of the word "charity" that irked me a little.
Once again, the word charity was never used and the mention of OCMW had nothing to do with Quickstep having a women's team or professional women cycling.

Anyone insisting on this is either a dishonest liar or someone who's recklessly misinformed and just doesn't care.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Once again, the word charity was never used and the mention of OCMW had nothing to do with Quickstep having a women's team or professional women cycling.
He just... randomly said that he's not a charity with no connection to the talk about women's team?
And okay, the translator team just used "charity" rather than the specific charity, probably knowing that the international reader wouldn't know what the heck OCMW is.
 
No matter his reasons (as @Hugh Januss said, he could've just answered "We have no plans to start a Women's team at this time") you don't end your explanation with an "With all respect, I'm not the social welfare center, eh" without coming across as a ***.
Why not? I have yet to see a single normal person who thinks that's problematic.

Once again, the "I'm not the social welfare center" bit didn't have to do with DQS creating a women's team; rather with having young female athletes taking up road cycling.

The idea that Lefevere, or anyone, should caliber their statements to account for cognitively limited people struggling with basic comprehension - like not understanding the "social welfare center" was about the developmental works he believes is necessary but that he can't do himself - is laughable.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
He just... randomly said that he's not a charity with no connection to the talk about women's team?
And okay, the translator team just used "charity" rather than the specific charity, probably knowing that the international reader wouldn't know what the heck OCMW is.
Randomly? Why on earth was it randomly? Because you don't want to admit being wrong, so keep on making up stuff?

There was nothing wrong with it.

Lefevere's point was "At this moment, there isn't enough talent to create a pro team with a Belgian core".

Then the theme went on and he said "There's an issue on the developmental stages, we need more women competing on road cycling and taking it seriously at lower/developmental levels, but I don't have the expertise or money for that, I'm not some public institution that actually has the duty, and means, to promote stuff for common good".

There was nothing random about it.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I thought I'd added the CN article, apparantly I accidentally deleted it...

So, why did he say he wasn't that specific Belgian charity?

Lefevere's point was "At this moment, there isn't enough talent to create a pro team with a Belgian core".

Then the theme went on and he said "There's an issue on the developmental stages, we need more women competing on road cycling and taking it seriously at lower/developmental levels, but I don't have the expertise or money for that, I'm not some public institution that actually has the duty, and means, to promote stuff for common good".

There was nothing random about it.
 
For me much of it is in the names he mentions. He talks about female cyclists the way I would talk about basketball players - of whom I know nothing but the biggest names and I hardly ever watch a match. So I doubt he really has some insight in whether a female team is doable for him, he just doesn't care. And in part that's what he says himself, I give him that. But I find it derogatory towards the talent that is there, because he makes it sound like it's just not worth it because the talent isn't there. There are a few very good Belgian riders, Kopecky on top of them, there is some decent talent in youth, but also talent in cx that I think could make the jump. If you can change a male ex-footballer or a rower into a cyclist within a few months, I doubt you wouldn't find the talent on the female side if you looked a bit past van Vleuten.
(Thinking about it though I wonder how much Lotto Soudal/ QS is also in this.)
This is all about that interview you didn't watch and yet insist on interpreting, right?

There's always some craziness on the internet but I'm not sure if I've ever experienced something quite like having to refute someone's very detailed parsing about the tone and subtexts of an interview they didn't watch. There's a Kafkian quality to this.

Lefevere wasn't "talking about female cyclists". He didn't write an essay on the current Belgian women peloton. It was a live interview, he mentioned a few cyclists as a subsidiary element his point. He didn't even had to mention any. It was clear he wasn't being exhaustive - and why should he. This would have been very obvious to you if you had actually, you know, watched the interview.

If you think he was "derogatory" because you don't agree with his statement, fine - go ahead and prove him wrong. Still a bit silly to claim he's "ignorant" or "hates women cycling in general" or whatever.

You still haven't addressed why on earth does your (100% false) claim Lefevere said women cycling "isn't worth it in general" (or come across as saying it, as you say to try to obfuscate you're just making up stuff and lying) squares with the real world fact that Lefevere himself, through his own company, was sponsoring a women pro team just a couple of years ago (and still is on cyclo-cross).

I mean the fact you claim the guy who invested on a team doesn't have insight on the feasibility of a team because you actually know much better is deeply troubling and worrying. About you though, not Lefevere.
 
jesus im trying to explain how is it possible that lefevere can decide what does the team do with the money even tho the money are not his

but you seemingly cannot fathom stardom or you refuse to acknowledge that lefevere is a star in his position
It is possible, but you have no idea if it is actually the case or not and coming up with one example more outlandish than the next.

And if Lefevere can veto a ladies team at Decolef (supposing it has no effect on how the mens team is run), then he is a ***, end of story.

But then, he never mentioned that having a ladies team would be a burden on the mens team.

So I am out of reasons why he would be against a ladies team at Decolef apart from simply not caring (I do not mention possible return on sponsorship issues, because that would genuinely be none of Lefevere's business whoever much of a star you think he is).
 
It is possible, but you have no idea if it is actually the case or not and coming up with one example more outlandish than the next.

And if Lefevere can veto a ladies team at Decolef (supposing it has no effect on how the mens team is run), then he is a ***, end of story.

But then, he never mentioned that having a ladies team would be a burden on the mens team.

So I am out of reasons why he would be against a ladies team at Decolef apart from simply not caring (I do not mention possible return on sponsorship issues, because that would genuinely be none of Lefevere's business whoever much of a star you think he is).
You're out of reasons but he literally explained why in a recent interview. The one you've commented without watching.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts