The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 31, 2018
180
175
3,030
Tbh, Lefevre does have a point.

Most top notch Dutch or Belgian female riders are either on their way out of the sport or committed with big teams (Movistar/Liv racing). I understand him not wanting to start a woman squad only to have to go to a period of 5-6 years for any decent female Dutch/Belgian talents comes along if any such talents exists.

I saw the live interview and there really wasn't anything wrong with what he said. But we can always blame the Diabetes, erm, drinks, if anyone's offended.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
***.

The discussion was whether or not Lefevere can decide how the team can be run without consulting anyone else.

Nowhere did you try 'to convince me that Lefevere was the bad guy'.

Edit: run in a wider sense of course including what investments can be made
if he can decide investments then not investing in womens cycling makes him a bad guy

if i convince you he decides investments then automatically i also convice you he is a bad guy

unless not investing in womens cycling does not make him a bad guy , in which case whats the outrage about?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
if the end goal is to develop the talent in a country, which is likely to succeed- 1) a state sponsored team 2) a professional team 3) a lonesome woman cyclist on her own managing all the logistics and training. For answer to the third point look no further than Olympic gold medalist Kiesenhofer who struggled to get her proper equipment ready for the WTT and had to borrow parts from other well funded/trained state team. The professional teams have the necessary equipment/trained personnel/expertise. Its just a matter of getting some additional sponsors and extending the men's team support towards the women's one.
 
if he can decide investments then not investing in womens cycling makes him a bad guy

if i convince you he decides investments then automatically i also convice you he is a bad guy

unless not investing in womens cycling does not make him a bad guy , in which case whats the outrage about?
The outrage is about his demeanour. He has full liberty to invest or not to invest in whatever he likes. He even has full liberty to insult anyone and anything he does not think is worthy of investing. The other side of this coin is, that forum users have full liberty to think he is an a** if they dislike his demeanour...
 
Lefevere eschews idea of women's team, says he's not a charity | Cyclingnews



Or are you saying the CN article just made stuff up? I didn't make anything up, I'm just reporting what I read.

The bit about needing to start with getting young women interested in cycling only comes up at the very end. But the article actually makes a good point; imagine being a young girl who starts cycling, moving up through the rank with the dream that; someday, you could ride for the best Belgian team out there!
I'm saying that the CN piece is not a transcript and is highly misleading on how it selectively quotes Lefevere while interjecting their own commentary, but, to their credit, they're careful enough to not claim that Lefevere said the reason he doesn't want to start a women team at DQS at this point is that he isn't a charity - that comma is doing a lot of work there.

Sure, you can argue that the CN title is ambiguously phrased to the point of erroneously suggesting Lefereve said what you claimed you said, but it's up to you to not fall for clickbait and outrage making "journalism".

If you want to parse an interview you didn't watch to viciously attack someone, the least you can do is to be careful with what you actually read about it; and, just as importantly, adopt a cautious charitable view instead of the wild-eyed pitch-fork raising stance.

Once again, Lefevere said he didn't have the duty, experience, expertise, money, etc, to have Belgian young women taking on road cycling. Not about "starting a women's team", as you falsely claimed. The CN article doesn't make that claim either, even if it was written ambiguously enough to induce you in error. You own that lie. You could do what any decent person would do and simply admit "Ooops, my first impression was wrong, Lefevere didn't say what I thought he said" (even if you disagree with his assessment on the current quality of Belgian peloton, the need for a Benelux core, the impact of a pro team, or whatever). You won't.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
The outrage is about his demeanour. He has full liberty to invest or not to invest in whatever he likes. He even has full liberty to insult anyone and anything he does not think is worthy of investing. The other side of this coin is, that forum users have full liberty to think he is an a** if they dislike his demeanour...
Reminder that Lefevere didn't insult anyone and there was nothing wrong about his demeanour - it's all made up by loons on this forum.
 
Reactions: Boes
if he can decide investments then not investing in womens cycling makes him a bad guy

if i convince you he decides investments then automatically i also convice you he is a bad guy

unless not investing in womens cycling does not make him a bad guy , in which case whats the outrage about?
so it seems that you don't actually think he is a bad guy, but just one post before that you wrote that you were trying to convince me that he is

ookay
 
Out of curiosity, I went on and checked what is being said about this topic in what I think is the largest road cycling public forum on the internet.


Here's the most upvoted comment:

Bit blunt, but putting it into the context of the interview makes it more palatable. And definitely understandable, from a manager's point of view.

"I was watching a race in Italy. Longo Borghini won. The first Belgian rider came in 40th at 5 minutes. I'm in a sidebusiness Experza, who are sponsoring the women's team of our Team Leader Rik Van Slycke. If there's a group of 50 riders breaking away in De Panne, and there's nobody there... ."

Also says there aren't enough good, female riders to start a new team. Mentions that most of the better riders are retiring, and that there's a huge gap of talent behind them. Especially when it comes to Belgian riders. This (translated) quote in particular is of note:

"Where do you start? First you've got to convince these women to become a pro-cyclist. I also don't have the experience, the time, the money, or the desire to invest when I don't know where I'll end up."


Here's a pretty good one:



This whole argument against him is lazy. How difficult is it to understand that:

  • a Belgian sponsor will need at least some good Belgian riders on the team
  • apart from Dhoore and Kopecky, there simply are no Belgians winning prominent races.
Shitting on Lefevere is fun, I know, but in this particular case people are simply grasping at straws. Which is weird, because Lefevere regularly gives us new, valid reasons to *** on him.

Seems like even people who don't admittedly don't like Lefevere are able to understand there was nothing wrong with these words and this interview and don't feel the need to entirely reconstruct what he said and flat make up stuff like "Lefevere said pro womens teams are like charities".
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I'm saying that the CN piece is not a transcript and is highly misleading on how it selectively quotes Lefevere while interjecting their own commentary, but, to their credit, they're careful enough to not claim that Lefevere said the reason he doesn't want to start a women team at DQS at this point is that he isn't a charity - that comma is doing a lot of work there.
Strange, I thought that comma was just... basic grammar. Meaning that, unlike with a punctuation mark, the second part refers back to the first. Otoh, not having the comma would just make the sentence really clunky.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Since when is watching the interview an “entry fee” to forming an opinion and expressing that opinion in public forum? I trust my news provider CN to be honest and skillful enough to report events with enough precision to be able to use them as a basis for an opinion. Besides, the interview was probably not in English so that means what - only Belgians are allowed to have an opinion about **** Lefevere says?
While CN does a good job, I think it can be naive to completely trust even their articles. It's hard to give the full context of a podcast in an article. Lefevere can be quite harsh by nature in how he expresses himself, and him being West-Flemish probably doesn't help him in that regard since the dialect sometimes has some pretty aggressive sounding expressions. The OCMW or social welfare remark sounds less harsh in West-Flemish than it does translated, in my eyes/ears, but by now he should know how it is going to portraited in the media.
 
"Deceuninck-Quickstep team boss shot down the idea of his organisation launching a top-tier women's squad in the manner of Jumbo-Visma, Lotto Soudal, Movistar, Trek-Segafredo, BikeExchange, Team DSM, FDJ, and now Cofidis, quipping 'I'm not the OCMW' (a Belgian welfare organisation). " He is literally comparing paying women to race bikes with being a welfare organization. I don't care if he sponsors a women's team or not, in fact women racers would most likely be better off not having to face his abusive language as a boss. Backing a women's team is not the issue, verbally assaulting people like Bennett and playing out his team's internal politics in public is the issue that I have with the man. It's like his brain shuts off.
 
De Panne was a WWT race. Trofeo Alfreda Binda as well.

Welfare was mentioned in the next sentence after De Panne.

Seems that finishing outside the top 40/50 means in Lefevere's eyes getting money for nothing. Now of course top 40/50 were in relation to Belgian riders, so I don't know how far up the result list one needs to be to lose the welfare status.
 
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.
Well if you had reasonable reading comprehension you could've read why because just after the paragraph you quoted I gave you an example. It's not my problem that people with severe cognitive issues can't read beyond two sentences.

Btw. I'm pretty sure you're quite aware that his OCMW metaphor leaves quite a sour taste because in all your quotes about what Levefre said you leave it out.

Out of curiosity, I went on and checked what is being said about this topic in what I think is the largest road cycling public forum on the internet.

Here's the most upvoted comment:

Bit blunt, but putting it into the context of the interview makes it more palatable. And definitely understandable, from a manager's point of view.

"I was watching a race in Italy. Longo Borghini won. The first Belgian rider came in 40th at 5 minutes. I'm in a sidebusiness Experza, who are sponsoring the women's team of our Team Leader Rik Van Slycke. If there's a group of 50 riders breaking away in De Panne, and there's nobody there... ."

Also says there aren't enough good, female riders to start a new team. Mentions that most of the better riders are retiring, and that there's a huge gap of talent behind them. Especially when it comes to Belgian riders. This (translated) quote in particular is of note:

"Where do you start? First you've got to convince these women to become a pro-cyclist. I also don't have the experience, the time, the money, or the desire to invest when I don't know where I'll end up."



Seems like even people who don't admittedly don't like Lefevere are able to understand there was nothing wrong with these words and this interview and don't feel the need to entirely reconstruct what he said and flat make up stuff like "Lefevere said pro womens teams are like charities".
Point in case here, you try to make a point by quoting someone from reddit but end up modifying the quote just to leave out the bit that makes Levefre actually look the smug clown he is:


But hey, thanks for your "out of curiosity" work you did by bringing us modified reddit posts that suit your agenda. Although I think it's actually - check's notes - "troubling and worrying" that you feel the need to misquote stuff.
But I guess the old bad internet mob is at fault for actually misquoting social welfare quotes from a guy that is known for accurate statements and decency in media dealings.
 
Reactions: roundabout
De Panne was a WWT race. Trofeo Alfreda Binda as well.

Welfare was mentioned in the next sentence after De Panne.

Seems that finishing outside the top 40/50 means in Lefevere's eyes getting money for nothing. Now of course top 40/50 were in relation to Belgian riders, so I don't know how far up the result list one needs to be to lose the welfare status.
That's not true. Earlier on this thread, we had someone saying "I hardly know anything about [women cycling], 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" saying that Lefevere is not only wrong in claiming there's a lack of elite Belgian talent, but flat out ignorant for saying it. The person who "hardly knows anything about women cycling" suddenly knew a lot more about Belgian talent than the guy who literally sponsored a team.

Now we have the person who didn't listen to the interview telling people who did how the interview actually went.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I said I wouldn't react, but honestly, I can't take it anymore. While PL is far from perfect, we can at least, on this very forum, try to keep the standards just a bit higher than PL his standards.

So in order to have a somehow more factually correct discussion, I did the effort to try to translate his words verbatim (more or less: I am not a translator) and add some context, and discuss what cyclingnews has said that PL said (which is not always what PL said).

Here is the transcript, as close as possible to the original.
INT = interviewer (Stijn Vlaeminck)
PL = Patrick Lefevere

This took around 2 minutes in a podcast with a duration of 44 minutes. So 2 minutes of the time they talked about women's cycling, and it was near the very end of the talk.
39:22-41:20
the podcast can be listened here: https://www.hln.be/wielrennen/een-vrouwenploeg-patrick-lefevere-in-onze-hln-sportcast-met-alle-respect-maar-ik-ben-ook-het-ocmw-niet-he~afebaf5a/


INT: Patrick: woman's cycling, when are you going to start with that?
PL: if there are good women in Belgium. But it doesn't have to be absolute a Belgian-centered squad imo.
But I sat in a program with Ine, and ofcourse this questions also comes from the sponsors, for clarity.
But I don't see them: Jolien D'hoore quits, Anna vdB stops
INT: that's a Dutch one.
PL: yes, but that doesn't matter. Only ... stays in the peloton, the one with Movistar...
INT: Lotte? (Kopecky)
PL: van Vleuten. Take that one out of the peloton... The Danish one I like (with Francais des yeux). She's funny and she's good. But then there is such a big gap.
I once was watching at a women's race in Italy on a Saturday afternoon where the Italian champion won.
INT: what's her name...
PL: Longo Borghini. And I think our first girl (= first Belgian) was between 40-50th at 5 minutes. Well... I found it entertaining but...
If you were watching the race in De Panne - I am involved in another company called Experza - and they sponsored a bit with the team of Rik Van Slycke, and you are watching the race
with 50 cyclists in the first group and nobody in that group (PL meant: nobody from the Experza sponsored team), then it's not fun, you know... with all respect...
I am not the public centre of social welfare (OCMW).
INT: but doesn't the level increase if there is more investment (in terms of sponsorship)? It's a bit the question of the chicken or the eg, no?
PL: with what do you have to start? First you have to convince them that they can become a (female) cyclist. But what should I recruit?
I don't have that experience and I don't have time and money and the motivation to invest 5 years if you don't know what you are going to achieve.


So a bit of personal interpretation:
They already talked about the TT, the road race, Evenepoel, WvA, Bennett,... and the interviewer comes up with his question about woman's cycling.
PL says that he (personally) doesn't see opportunities as there are too few (or no) big guns in Belgium, and the big guns overall are quitting. And in the same sentence, he added that others have already asked him, and sponsors as well.
He illustrates this with a race in Italy where he hardly didn't see a Belgian girl, and he illustrates it with a race in Belgium where he didn't have a girl in the first group from his Experza-sponsored team.
So he both argues that he doesn't see enough talent at this very moment he can get into his team (if he would build a team), and he says it's no fun when you sponsor a team with cyclists not getting results.
When the interviewer argues that there won't be talent without pro teams and good sponsors, PL says he doesn't have experience, and time/money/motivation to start up something with a lot of uncertainties.

So you have an interview with a 66-year old, who acknowledges that, even though his sponsors ask him to search for opportunities, he says he doesn't see them (either because he is not experienced / motivated ...) and gives some arguments.
It's actually very unterstandable that someone like PL doesn't need another project at his age, and probably doesn't have the energy to build something similar like the men's team, starting from scratch with regards to hiring female cyclists.
He himself acknowledges he is not experienced, and he doesn't see who he would hire. While everybody can suggest he is missing opportunities and he doesn't see the opportunities, well, maybe you are correct. But is this a reason to attack him for not doing what he doesn't see?

So what went wrong at cyclingnews?

They start their article with:
"In the latest of a string of controversial remarks "
First of all, this line prepares the naive reader that something controversial has been said. You don't even need to judge anymore. The judging is done for you.

Next they state that Lefevere his organisation won't launch a woman's top team (like there are many that mirror the man's team). That's good critique by CN. Because even if PL isn't the right guy to start a woman's team, PL himself says his sponsors are open to it, so maybe PL should look for guys in his organisation who can start up the woman's team.

CN (rightly) said that Lefevere didn't mention Kopecky, even if the interviewer tried to mention her name when PL listed what he named top riders.

Further on, PL illustrated the fact that there are hardly any Belgian big riders by the Italian race he mentioned. CN mentions that the first Belgian was helping Marianne Vos who ended up 2nd, but that's really reaching by CN: There still wasn't any Belgian rider with a result in that race, and that was the point PL was making with that example.

Next a very clear misinterpretation by CN: CN stated that PL neglected 2 Belgian women in the front group in the race at De Panne.
CN didn't have good translators, because PL was only talking about riders from his Experza team not making the front group. So CN attacked Lefevere because they are simply prejudiced and lie about what PL really said.
And in that specific context (sponsoring a team with no one in the first group of 50) made him say he isn't sponsoring for welfare, implicitly saying that he expects results when he pays riders.

The CN article ends with:
"Lefevere's controversial comments regarding women's cycling are the latest ..."

I let you decide if what he says was controversial, but I feel it wasn't.
You could argue that, with another CEO, DQS would already have had a woman's team. PL clearly isn't the right person to start all of that. But that's not PL his fault: he himself admits he doesn't see opportunities, and he lacks experience.
So if his sponsors want a woman's team to happen, they should either take over an existing structure or suggest to PL that someone else will also be CEO for the woman's division.

I realize it's hard for non-dutch speaking people when the source of information is second hand, but may that always be a warning to be cautious if basing yourself upon those sources.
But I hope the discussion can be a bit more truthful and factual..
 
Well if you had reasonable reading comprehension you could've read why because just after the paragraph you quoted I gave you an example. It's not my problem that people with severe cognitive issues can't read beyond two sentences.

Btw. I'm pretty sure you're quite aware that his OCMW metaphor leaves quite a sour taste because in all your quotes about what Levefre said you leave it out.
Your "example" was some weird shrieking about a basketball team director or whatever? I have no idea what was the analogy you were trying to make.

Whatever it is, it simply doesn't mean Lefevere stated that running a women pro cycling is charity or should be done by the OCMW or whatever.

He's very clear the reason he won't do it is because there isn't domestic talent.

Point in case here, you try to make a point by quoting someone from reddit but end up modifying the quote just to leave out the bit that makes Levefre actually look the smug clown he is:


But hey, thanks for your "out of curiosity" work you did by bringing us modified reddit posts that suit your agenda. Although I think it's actually - check's notes - "troubling and worrying" that you feel the need to misquote stuff.
But I guess the old bad internet mob is at fault for actually misquoting social welfare quotes from a guy that is known for accurate statements and decency in media dealings.
I'm sorry I lost a bit of the post on the copy paste but how on earth does that change the meaning of the comment?

Do you agree with me that Lefevere's comments were a bit blunt but eminently potable and totally understandable after all? I'm at a loss here. Either you agree with yourself or with that comment -- that I selected because it was the most upvoted one. Which is it?
 
If people were conned by CN's outrage-making revenue-generating article, they should be mad at CN and its editors for manipulating and making fools out of them, not at Lefevere or anyone else.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
If people were conned by CN's outrage-making revenue-generating article, they should be mad at CN and its editors for manipulating and making fools out of them, not at Lefevere or anyone else.
So now you are calling the person who wrote the article a liar? I wonder which will come first Lefevere's defamation suit against Cycling News or Cycling News' against you.
 
So now you are calling the person who wrote the article a liar? I wonder which will come first Lefevere's defamation suit against Cycling News or Cycling News' against you.

Seems like there's a clear pattern - in this thread and out of it- where people who didn't listen to the interview are incandescent about what Lefevere said (or rather, what they think he said) and people who did aren't. What does that tell you?

I have yet to see a single person who actually listened to the interview who agrees with you - what does that tell you?

I don't think the person who wrote the CN is a liar - just that people who fall for click-baiting phrasing and titles are simpletons.

And of course, there was stuff said in this thread that can't even be inferred from CN's article - like weird claims about how Lefevere said he could stop sponsors from sponsoring a women's team and whatnot.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The 50 breakaway at De Panne was re: to Expereza team and there's nothing you can say that will change that. You can convince yourself that isn't it so, but it only means you're living in delusion.
I see an Experza girl in 32nd in the only De Panne Experza did


So even being super charitable, Lefevere got that wrong as well

So, ok, I got that part wrong, so not making top-30 is equivalent to getting welfare.
 
Seems like there's a clear pattern - in this thread and out of it- where people who didn't listen to the interview are incandescent about what Lefevere said (or rather, what they think he said) and people who did aren't. What does that tell you?

I have yet to see a single person who actually listened to the interview who agrees with you - what does that tell you?

I don't think the person who wrote the CN is a liar - just that people who fall for click-baiting phrasing and titles are simpletons.

And of course, there was stuff said in this thread that can't even be inferred from CN's article - like weird claims about how Lefevere said he could stop sponsors from sponsoring a women's team and whatnot.
Lefevere is either the worlds biggest *** or an innocent victim of being wildly misquoted, eh? I wonder if anyone outside of Belgium believes the latter. LOL
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS