The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

[roundabout]

Uh, Lefevere himself says that he doesn't know if investing in development is worth it or not.

And yet he sponsored a ladies team in 2018.

The only way these two things square is that it is not worth investing now.

 

[RedheadDane]

If he'd wanted to start a women's team, couldn't he do so without having the duty? Or is he implying that the various teams that have both a men's and a women's division only started the women's team because they had some duty to do so?

 

[roundabout]

You're out of reasons but he literally explained why in a recent interview. The one you've commented without watching.

Uhm, no? I actually commented about the question which you think Lefevere thought was about himself. Pretty difficult to do that without watching the interview (and watching it or not is not anywhere close to important as you think it is).

I see that you are having the same cognitive problems again that you like to accuse others of.

Edit

 

[Bullrun]

Uh, Lefevere himself says that he doesn't know if investing in development is worth it or not.

And yet he sponsored a ladies team in 2018.

The only way these two things square is that it is not worth investing now.

Where?

He just says investing in development isn't worth it for him because he doesn't have the expertise, the money, the duty or the will to do so.

He says he doesn't see an elite pro team as viable because the talent just ins't there.


There's nothing remotely contradictory about these statements except for people who struggle with basic comprehension.

 

[saganftw]

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).

those are not outlandish examples, those things happens

you dont believe lefevere in cycling is as "valuable" to organization as lets say Guardiola is to manchester city? as alex ferguson was to manchester united? as belichick is to patriots? as tom landry was to cowboys? i can name dozens of examples of extremely succesfull and powerful managers, coaches, players you name it

but lets say im wrong - that means actually lefevere isnt the bad guy - Bakala is coz he is deciding what to do with money

ohhhhhhh now the whole thread is a on its head ladies and gentlemen we have the wrong guy

 

[Bullrun]

If he'd wanted to start a women's team, couldn't he do so without having the duty? Or is he implying that the various teams that have both a men's and a women's division only started the women's team because they had some duty to do so?

I know you're just a troll but he 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, once again, lie about. He did literally that not long ago (or sponsored the survival of an existing one) which makes your lie about what he actually said even more pathetic.

 

[BlueRoads]

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.

Okay, my last reply, then I'll put you on ignore.

1. Your tone is totally inappropriate.
2. I didn't watch the interview but like I said I read a transcript so I know what he said in full and that's enough for me to feel free to interprete and understand.
3. You should look at yourself and what you are writing because you are twisting PL's words the way you want them to be.

He clearly says there is not enough talent, when there are at least 7 or 8 Belgian cyclists, active in WT and youth racing right now, who could very well form a very good core. Enough for a women's team. Some of them are at Lotto, though. He also doesn't mention some female cyclists by the way but suggests there isn't really anyone aside from the ones he mentions, that are good and interesting for him.

 

[roundabout]

Where?

He just says investing in development isn't worth it for him because he doesn't have the expertise, the money, the duty or the will to do so.

He says he doesn't see an elite pro team as viable because the talent just ins't there.


There's nothing remotely contradictory about these statements except for people who struggle with basic comprehension.

Uh, financially supporting a ladies team is investment in development.

Comprehension problems yet again?

 

[roundabout]

those are not outlandish examples, those things happens

you dont believe lefevere in cycling is as "valuable" to organization as lets say Guardiola is to manchester city? as alex ferguson was to manchester united? as belichick is to patriots? as tom landry was to cowboys? i can name dozens of examples of extremely succesfull and powerful managers, coaches, players you name it

but lets say im wrong - that means actually lefevere isnt the bad guy - Bakala is coz he is deciding what to do with money

ohhhhhhh now the whole thread is a on its head ladies and gentlemen we have the wrong guy

Uh, not sure how you got that Bakala is the bad guy when he never stated an opinion on the ladies team (at least as far as I am aware of), nor did Lefevere say that he was speaking on his behalf.

But good job in trying to twist things I guess.

 

[roundabout]

also Lefevere never said duty in any of the transcripts that I have seen.

Not sure why the need to invent that after all the hysteria about other people misinterpreting stuff

 

[Bullrun]

Uh, financially supporting a ladies team is investment in development.

Comprehension problems yet again?

Sure, if you're unhinged to the point of wanting to claim that Lefevere's point wasn't that the current talent to form a pro team with a strong Belgian core doesn't exist now and that he isn't the person to do the necessary a priori developmental work at the youth levels and recruitment, I guess you can claim that sponsoring a pro team is development anyway and that Lefevere can do that. Obviously, that's just a silly word play that has nothing to do with Lefevere's point but surely better than just admit being wrong or that you were fooled by bad reporting?

Once again, I suspect that's inevitable when you're enough of a loon to parse interviews you didn't bother to watch?

 

[saganftw]

Uh, not sure how you got that Bakala is the bad guy when he never stated an opinion on the ladies team (at least as far as I am aware of), nor did Lefevere say that he was speaking on his behalf.

But good job in trying to twist things I guess.

you are something else, when i suggested that lefevere decides what to do with money you reply that you dont believe it

so when i suggest that the owner decides what to do with money you dont believe that either

im running out of options here, is there a third party at DQS with the power to decide what to do?

there has to be somebody - either its the owner, or its lefevere or ???

 

[Hugh Januss]

I know you're just a troll but he 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, once again, lie about. He did literally that not long ago (or sponsored the survival of an existing one) which makes your lie about what he actually said even more pathetic.

And you're just another tough guy internet keyboard lawyer who is never wrong.

 

[roundabout]

Sure, if you're unhinged to the point of wanting to claim that Lefevere's point wasn't that the current talent to form a pro team with a strong Belgian core doesn't exist now and that he isn't the person to do the necessary a priori developmental work at the youth levels and recruitment, I guess you can claim that sponsoring a pro team is development anyway and that Lefevere can do that. Obviously, that's just a silly word play that has nothing to do with Lefevere's point but surely better than just admit being wrong or that you were fooled by bad reporting?

Once again, I suspect that's inevitable when you're enough of a loon to parse interviews you didn't bother to watch?

What? I am just curious why your interpretation of what Lefevere meant is the only possible one?

Point is he invested money in ladies cycling before and doesn't want to do it know. Your spin does not change that.

 

[Bullrun]

Okay, my last reply, then I'll put you on ignore.

1. Your tone is totally inappropriate.
2. I didn't watch the interview but like I said I read a transcript so I know what he said in full and that's enough for me to feel free to interprete and understand.
3. You should look at yourself and what you are writing because you are twisting PL's words the way you want them to be.

He clearly says there is not enough talent, when there are at least 7 or 8 Belgian cyclists, active in WT and youth racing right now, who could very well form a very good core. Enough for a women's team. Some of them are at Lotto, though. He also doesn't mention some female cyclists by the way but suggests there isn't really anyone aside from the ones he mentions, that are good and interesting for him.

Your tone is far more inappropriate than mine: you repeatedly made-up stuff, called names, lied, were uncharitable, etc,.

The problem isn't my tone - in fact, most of the comments on this thread are far more vitriolic than mine and it's not even close; it's that, for once, they were directed at you and called you out, not at Lefevere or someone else other than you.

You can dish but then can't take even a little bit of what you give.

I also suspect you're lying about "reading a transcript" - where was a transcript of the interview even published? Maybe you read CN's piece.


He says there isn't enough talent now.

He mentions the Trofeo Binda and D'Hoore's retirement.

IMO he's right; but, once again, if he's wrong, that's hardly a big deal - people are wrong all the time and that's fine. Except you, of course.

If you were a serious person, you could simply say "I think Lefevere is wrong in how he assesses the current talent level of the Belgian women's peloton".

Instead, you went on rambles about how he's ignorant, how he claimed women's cycling isn't worth it (even though he literally sponsored at eam), and so on.

 

[Bullrun]

What? I am just curious why your interpretation of what Lefevere meant is the only possible one?

Point is he invested money in ladies cycling before and doesn't want to do it know. Your spin does not change that.

You know he literally mentioned that investment, right (that I'm pretty sure it's still ongoing, just not on-road cycling)?

Oh of course, you don't, you didn't watch the interview.

He said what he said:

He doesn't want to do it now because he doesn't think a competitive team is viable with the Belgian talent that exists.

That's all.

It's not some complicated "Interpretation".

You being very angry and trying to paint this as Lefevere hating women cycling or whatever doesn't change that.

 

[roundabout]

you are something else, when i suggested that lefevere decides what to do with money you reply that you dont believe it

so when i suggest that the owner decides what to do with money you dont believe that either

im running out of options here, is there a third party at DQS with the power to decide what to do?

there has to be somebody - either its the owner, or its lefevere or ???

twist, twist, twist, twist. and I am the one who is something else.

What I am saying is that I do not know whether Lefevere has the right to speak on behalf of Bakala whether it makes sense to invest money in other projects or not.

Only way if Bakala is the 'bad guy' as you put it, if this was decided by him. But there is no evidence of that.

 

[RedheadDane]

I know you're just a troll but he 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, once again, lie about. He did literally that not long ago (or sponsored the survival of an existing one) which makes your lie about what he actually said even more pathetic.

Lefevere eschews idea of women's team, says he's not a charity | Cyclingnews

In the latest of a string of controversial remarks, 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).

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!

 

[saganftw]

twist, twist, twist, twist. and I am the one who is something else.

What I am saying is that I do not know whether Lefevere has the right to speak on behalf of Bakala whether it makes sense to invest money in other projects or not.

Only way if Bakala is the 'bad guy' as you put it, if this was decided by him. But there is no evidence of that.

ok so we are back to lefevere is the bad guy

im glad that somebody with the name roundabout came all the way back to my original point

its poetic really

 

[roundabout]

You know he literally mentioned that investment, right (that I'm pretty sure it's still ongoing, just not on-road cycling)?

Oh of course, you don't, you didn't watch the interview.

He said what he said:

He doesn't want to do it now because he doesn't think a competitive team is viable with the Belgian talent that exists.

That's all.

It's not some complicated "Interpretation".

You being very angry and trying to paint this as Lefevere hating women cycling or whatever doesn't change that.

lol, i am not the one being hysterical in every post like you

"or whatever", you're too lazy to think when reading my posts

Lefevere was asked if investing would improve the level. He said that he did not want to do it. Nowhere in his answer to that particular question did he say anything about a competitive team.

But of course, it's others who are liars and only you know the truth

 

[roundabout]

ok so we are back to lefevere is the bad guy

im glad that somebody with the name roundabout came all the way back to my original point

its poetic really

Are you sure you even know yourself what your original point was?

 

[saganftw]

Are you sure you even know yourself what your original point was?

of course, i can read my messages

there are only two options here - either lefevere decides what to do with money and he is the bad guy or Bakala decides what to do with money and he is the bad guy who doesnt want to support women cycling

i was trying to convince you its lefevere but you didnt buy it

 

[bNator]

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?

 

[roundabout]

of course, i can read my messages

there are only two options here - either lefevere decides what to do with money and he is the bad guy or Bakala decides what to do with money and he is the bad guy who doesnt want to support women cycling

i was trying to convince you its lefevere but you didnt buy it

***.

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

 

[yaco]

There are bigger issues than LeFevre not wanting to start a women's team - QS will have a women's team if it is the desire of the sponsor - We have the biggest budget team in Ineos who have never shown any interest in a women's team which is a bigger concern - Even UAE plan to start a women's team in 2023.

In relation to LeFevre's interview - I haven't seen it and i guess it's probably in Flemish ,so I will gain nothing from the interview - In a perfect world, I want to see the interview to check on tone, nuances or subtleties before I express a strong opinion, as my experience, is that articles can misrepresent what was actually stated in an interview.