The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

[Volderke]

I get all of that, but disagree on PL's modus operandi as I've stated all along.

His grievences with JA should not have been stated in the press as leverage against him. I'm well aware he's always been this way, but that doesn't mean one has to like it, let alone accept it as a justification. It's simply a megalomaniacal power trip.

Most of his career is a megalomaniac powertrip, true!

As far as preparing for Worlds is concerned, weren't Ala's travel and lodging costs picked up by the French federation? In any case, how can you expect a pro not to defend his rainbow jersey? If PL has only eyes for Evenepoel at Worlds, then he's mixing team with national interests, but this shouldn't hinder Ala's prep and ambitions. It's part of the game. Ala is a QS employee for the season, but a member of the French national team for Worlds and Olympics. That's just cycling. In the grand scheme, Ala prepares to deliver in the spring classics, then for stages at the Tour, to then use the Vuelta as prep for Worlds. So no matter the early results, his season is organized thus.
Hence Patrick's sudden turn against Ala's objectives, can only be connected to the realization, given the Frenchman's problems and setbacks, that he's spending money he'd rather channel elsewhere to invest in supporting Evenepoel. Still having the rainbow jersey adds luster to the team franchise and it's sponsors, whether it's within the home nation or not, as were the cases with Imola and Leuven. In any case, Lefebvre has created a dilemma of his own making.

in PL's world, Evenepoel won the Vuelta and could thus not do anything wrong (or in other words: his season was already complete before the Worlds, and the World's would be his last ride of the season.
For JA, things were different: because of crashes, JA hadn't shown enough in the first half of the season, and PL wanted 2 things of JA: a support role in the Vuelta, and the Italian fall classics. He was OK with JA going to the World's. When JA crashed out of the Vuelta, PL felt that JA would not be in shape for the World's and suggested him to skip the worlds and fully focus on the Italian fall classics. While half of the French team didn't go to the World's (like Bardet), JA still was, however, still very eager to go. PL shook his head as he thought it was a bad idea, and ofcourse it didn't fit his own view of how to save JA's season. As most of the times, PL was right, and even though he couldn't refuse JA to compete in the worlds, it effectively made him miss weeks of racing and a good preparation for the Italian fall classics. That's not value for money in PL's rational business mind. You call it a a turn against Ala's objectives, but it was as much common sense.

So basically what you are insinuating is that Ala should have forsaken his chances of defending his title first at Leuven and then Wollongong, simply because this conflicted with Patrick's interest in seeing Remco shine.

Obviously that's going to lead to a conflict of interests. But it's one that PL has created and publicly seminated.

Basically, PL thinks that JA is paid too much between August and December to just focus on the World's. Alaphilippe pulled it off in Leuven, but it was clear that Wollongong wasn't going to be succesfull. PL is probably very OK with JA asking at the beginning of August if he can fully prepare for he world's, if he has a season like 2019, but not if he has a season like 2022. It has nothing to do with Remco... PL would have said the same thing about Remco, if he was injured in Spring and wanted to fully focus on the World's. PL expressed the same dislike for Evenepoel's Tokyo appearance as for JA's Worlds in Australia. So if you are trying to make this a specific Lefevere vs. JA thing, think again, please. As said, Lefevere has always very much liked the WC jersey in the team, but he has always lamented about his riders taken away by national teams for country duties.

 

[Volderke]

For everything Lefevere says you could just replace Alaphilippe with Bennett and for everything Paddys fan boys are saying to defend him you could do the same thing.
And yet we are all supposed to believe the problem is with the rider not the common denominator.

You fail to see Alaphilippe and Lefevere have a professional relationship for 13 years... Still you assume you know, based on hearsay, that Alaphilippe has been disrespected, and that there is (your words) a "problem" between PL and JA...
There was a problem with Bennett, yes, but the only problem with Alaphilippe is the media trying to spin a story that isn't there.

(this message has been approved by the Paddy Fanboy Club - PFC™)

 

[BR2]

Most of his career is a megalomaniac powertrip, true!


in PL's world, Evenepoel won the Vuelta and could thus not do anything wrong (or in other words: his season was already complete before the Worlds, and the World's would be his last ride of the season.
For JA, things were different: because of crashes, JA hadn't shown enough in the first half of the season, and PL wanted 2 things of JA: a support role in the Vuelta, and the Italian fall classics. He was OK with JA going to the World's. When JA crashed out of the Vuelta, PL felt that JA would not be in shape for the World's and suggested him to skip the worlds and fully focus on the Italian fall classics. While half of the French team didn't go to the World's (like Bardet), JA still was, however, still very eager to go. PL shook his head as he thought it was a bad idea, and ofcourse it didn't fit his own view of how to save JA's season. As most of the times, PL was right, and even though he couldn't refuse JA to compete in the worlds, it effectively made him miss weeks of racing and a good preparation for the Italian fall classics. That's not value for money in PL's rational business mind. You call it a a turn against Ala's objectives, but it was as much common sense.


Basically, PL thinks that JA is paid too much between August and December to just focus on the World's. Alaphilippe pulled it off in Leuven, but it was clear that Wollongong wasn't going to be succesfull. PL is probably very OK with JA asking at the beginning of August if he can fully prepare for he world's, if he has a season like 2019, but not if he has a season like 2022. It has nothing to do with Remco... PL would have said the same thing about Remco, if he was injured in Spring and wanted to fully focus on the World's. PL expressed the same dislike for Evenepoel's Tokyo appearance as for JA's Worlds in Australia. So if you are trying to make this a specific Lefevere vs. JA thing, think again, please. As said, Lefevere has always very much liked the WC jersey in the team, but he has always lamented about his riders taken away by national teams for country duties.

A rider in the rainbows, who has a complete outside shot at getting his third title in a row will of course go for that. That's really not so hard to understand.
Let's be real, after all the setbacks during the season, among them a really awful crash with tough consequences, but beginning already, if I remember correctly, in the end of the off-season with illness, he was never going to be in top form in autumn. He still tried and did his best, but whether Australia or Italian falls it was not expected that he would be in contention for the win. And a manager should know and respect that.

That Alaphilippe is saying it's all fine and doesn't confront PL in public is his style and is hardly an indicator for it all being fine.

 

[Volderke]

A rider in the rainbows, who has a complete outside shot at getting his third title in a row will of course go for that. That's really not so hard to understand.
Let's be real, after all the setbacks during the season, among them a really awful crash with tough consequences, but beginning already, if I remember correctly, in the end of the off-season with illness, he was never going to be in top form in autumn. He still tried and did his best, but whether Australia or Italian falls it was not expected that he would be in contention for the win. And a manager should know and respect that.

Lefevere respected that: While he said he thought it was a bad idea for JA to ride the world's, he didn't put his veto and let him go. In the end, he was right though, and this reinforced his opinion that riders should listen to their coaches, doctors and PL when they all say the shape is not there (same for Bennett and Asgreen in the Tour). In case of Asgreen, it was understandable (the Tour departed in Denmark), for Bennett... there was a big breach of trust due to lack of communication, and Bennett ignoring team protocol with regards to medical treatment.
PL is very transparent and rational, and that is exactly the reason why he frequently airs his frustration about riders who make choices that are either not rational (JA, Asgreen, in starting the worlds and the Tour, respectively) or riders who are not transparent in their behaviour up to the point PL can get very angry (Bennett).

That Alaphilippe is saying it's all fine and doesn't confront PL in public is his style and is hardly an indicator for it all being fine.

True. There are many other indicators that show its fine. As far as I can see and hear, there are very few indicators that show it's not fine.

 

[Extinction]

Most of his career is a megalomaniac powertrip, true!


in PL's world, Evenepoel won the Vuelta and could thus not do anything wrong (or in other words: his season was already complete before the Worlds, and the World's would be his last ride of the season.
For JA, things were different: because of crashes, JA hadn't shown enough in the first half of the season, and PL wanted 2 things of JA: a support role in the Vuelta, and the Italian fall classics. He was OK with JA going to the World's. When JA crashed out of the Vuelta, PL felt that JA would not be in shape for the World's and suggested him to skip the worlds and fully focus on the Italian fall classics. While half of the French team didn't go to the World's (like Bardet), JA still was, however, still very eager to go. PL shook his head as he thought it was a bad idea, and ofcourse it didn't fit his own view of how to save JA's season. As most of the times, PL was right, and even though he couldn't refuse JA to compete in the worlds, it effectively made him miss weeks of racing and a good preparation for the Italian fall classics. That's not value for money in PL's rational business mind. You call it a a turn against Ala's objectives, but it was as much common sense.


Basically, PL thinks that JA is paid too much between August and December to just focus on the World's. Alaphilippe pulled it off in Leuven, but it was clear that Wollongong wasn't going to be succesfull. PL is probably very OK with JA asking at the beginning of August if he can fully prepare for he world's, if he has a season like 2019, but not if he has a season like 2022. It has nothing to do with Remco... PL would have said the same thing about Remco, if he was injured in Spring and wanted to fully focus on the World's. PL expressed the same dislike for Evenepoel's Tokyo appearance as for JA's Worlds in Australia. So if you are trying to make this a specific Lefevere vs. JA thing, think again, please. As said, Lefevere has always very much liked the WC jersey in the team, but he has always lamented about his riders taken away by national teams for country duties.

I get your analysis from PL's perspective and I have no problem with that (and appeciate your civil way of conveying it). Again, however, it's not his perspective that's troublesome, of which he is perfectly entitled. Rather it's the arrogant expressing of his own opinion publicly that's cringeworthy, often in a callous way with malacious intent, on matters concerning team riders that are best left private.

 

[Extinction]

Lefevere respected that: While he said he thought it was a bad idea for JA to ride the world's, he didn't put his veto and let him go. In the end, he was right though, and this reinforced his opinion that riders should listen to their coaches, doctors and PL when they all say the shape is not there (same for Bennett and Asgreen in the Tour). In case of Asgreen, it was understandable (the Tour departed in Denmark), for Bennett... there was a big breach of trust due to lack of communication, and Bennett ignoring team protocol with regards to medical treatment.
PL is very transparent and rational, and that is exactly the reason why he frequently airs his frustration about riders who make choices that are either not rational (JA, Asgreen, in starting the worlds and the Tour, respectively) or riders who are not transparent in their behaviour up to the point PL can get very angry (Bennett).


True. There are many other indicators that show its fine. As far as I can see and hear, there are very few indicators that show it's not fine.

I wonder though, why don't we get these public "scoldings" from other team bosses the way we do with Patrick. I mean, don't other riders enter into conflict with their coaches, doctors and team bosses? Of course they do, but we didn't get dirty laundry aired, for example, at Movistar between Unzue and El Condor or even MAL, or again between the latter and Vino at Astana recently.

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

I wonder though, why don't we get these public "scoldings" from other team bosses the way we do with Patrick. I mean, don't other riders enter into conflict with their coaches, doctors and team bosses? Of course they do, but we didn't get dirty laundry aired, for example, at Movistar between Unzue and El Condor or even MAL, or again between the later and Vino at Astana recently.

Is the laundry really that dirty here or is it journalists trying to find a story?

 

[Extinction]

Is the laundry really that dirty here or is it journalists trying to find a story?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? To be or not to be, that is the question?

 

[Volderke]

I wonder though, why don't we get these public "scoldings" from other team bosses the way we do with Patrick. I mean, don't other riders enter into conflict with their coaches, doctors and team bosses? Of course they do, but we didn't get dirty laundry aired, for example, at Movistar between Unzue and El Condor or even MAL, or again between the later and Vino at Astana recently.

The main reason this is a story, is because the main protagonist is Lefevere. He is divisive, and thus he is great story material: once in a while, there is a real story (e.g. Bennett).
So in between these real stories, journalists are always looking to create a (non-)story based on Lefevere's words. so they keep chewing on his words, squeezing out stories...
The next time Lefevere is really disrespectful, people can say "I knew it, I remember him being disrespectful to Alaphilippe". And so it continues...

To illustrate how this 'problem' started, I will make a comparison.

Suppose you (Lefevere) are going through a though time in your relationship with your wife (Alaphilippe) . You adress this by having a serious talk with your wife, you ask her if she's still happy, and if not, you respect her so much and you would her rather leave that stay in a forced situation. Your wife tells you she still loves you and she definitely wants to stay.
After that talk, you feel relieved. So you go to a bar to meet a friend (sporza). You share your thoughts about your relationship, mentioning you have ups and downs, and you had a good, constructive talk with your wife without taboos about how to work on the relation, and to illustrate it really was a talk without avoiding any taboos, you mention you asked if she wanted to leave, but she said she wanted to stay. Just to show you had a serious conversation and all was spoken out. You also speak about other friends, relationships and so on. Another French-speaking friend of your friend (La Derniere Heure, Walloon tabloid) is also at the table, and doesn't talk much he just listens to everything you said.
The next day, your French-speaking friend meets another French-speaking friend (Equipe) (a friend of your wife), and an English-speaking friend (cyclingnews). He says he met you in the bar last night, and remembers that you suggested your wife should pack her bags and leave, if she wasn't happy. The Equipe friend is triggered: your wife was being asked about packing her bags? Is there trouble in the relationship? Let's find out! The English-speaking friend doesn't speak French very well, but from what he understood (which is at that point a cherry-picked line, translated Dutch to French to English), he concludes there is big trouble in the relationship and he tells al his friends about you being disrespectful and wanting to get rid of your wife. He remembers you had troubles with your ex-wife (Bennett), and reckons that was mostly your fault, so very likely it's your fault again...
The Equipe friend confronts your wife and asks if you suggested her to pack her bags. Your wife, taken by surprise and a bit shocked about what she hears, says she never had a conversation about splitting up with you! The Equipe friend is confused. He decides to ask you if you had any talk about your relationship with your wife. Ofcourse you had a talk about your relationship, you say, you're not inventing these things...! Now you are confused and start wondering why your wife is denying you had a talk about your relationship?

The equipe friend and the Cyclingnews friend have confirmation: While you only confirmed you had a constructive and serious relation talk with your wife, they now know for sure you were a disrespectful jerk that even dared to ask your wife to pack her bags if was done with the relationship! And your wife denying this, only confirmed to them that the poor wife is probably too shocked...!

So shortly after, you have another good talk with your wife, and the both of you quickly realize that all of your French and English 'friends' were lost in translation and only picked out what they wanted to hear (that your relationship is bad and you're at the point of splitting up), without having any attention for the bigger picture (the relationship is fine, but only if they put energy into it). So the wife decides to talk again to the French-speaking friend, to tell him that she indeed had a good talk, but that everything is fine.

But it's too late: your French / English-speaking "friends" are 100% prejudiced against you (and 100% supporting your wife). The rumour cannot be stopped anymore, and your reputation is gone. Weeks later, you are still a disrespectful jerk in their eyes, even if they see you are happy together.

 

[BR2]

In the last years he trashed Bennett where we didn't know how much truth there was in what they both said, but in the end he just wanted to badmouth him for egoistical reasons. He agitated against Almeida. I remember him making snarky remarks about Hodeg. Now it's a rider who won the WC twice and has had a terribly unlucky season. Maybe he's always been like that, maybe he has become worse in the past years, but I'm done with the excuses.

 

[Extinction]

The main reason this is a story, is because the main protagonist is Lefevere. He is divisive, and thus he is great story material: once in a while, there is a real story (e.g. Bennett).
So in between these real stories, journalists are always looking to create a (non-)story based on Lefevere's words. so they keep chewing on his words, squeezing out stories...
The next time Lefevere is really disrespectful, people can say "I knew it, I remember him being disrespectful to Alaphilippe". And so it continues...

To illustrate how this 'problem' started, I will make a comparison.

Suppose you (Lefevere) are going through a though time in your relationship with your wife (Alaphilippe) . You adress this by having a serious talk with your wife, you ask her if she's still happy, and if not, you respect her so much and you would her rather leave that stay in a forced situation. Your wife tells you she still loves you and she definitely wants to stay.
After that talk, you feel relieved. So you go to a bar to meet a friend (sporza). You share your thoughts about your relationship, mentioning you have ups and downs, and you had a good, constructive talk with your wife without taboos about how to work on the relation, and to illustrate it really was a talk without avoiding any taboos, you mention you asked if she wanted to leave, but she said she wanted to stay. Just to show you had a serious conversation and all was spoken out. You also speak about other friends, relationships and so on. Another French-speaking friend of your friend (La Derniere Heure, Walloon tabloid) is also at the table, and doesn't talk much he just listens to everything you said.
The next day, your French-speaking friend meets another French-speaking friend (Equipe) (a friend of your wife), and an English-speaking friend (cyclingnews). He says he met you in the bar last night, and remembers that you suggested your wife should pack her bags and leave, if she wasn't happy. The Equipe friend is triggered: your wife was being asked about packing her bags? Is there trouble in the relationship? Let's find out! The English-speaking friend doesn't speak French very well, but from what he understood (which is at that point a cherry-picked line, translated Dutch to French to English), he concludes there is big trouble in the relationship and he tells al his friends about you being disrespectful and wanting to get rid of your wife. He remembers you had troubles with your ex-wife (Bennett), and reckons that was mostly your fault, so very likely it's your fault again...
The Equipe friend confronts your wife and asks if you suggested her to pack her bags. Your wife, taken by surprise and a bit shocked about what she hears, says she never had a conversation about splitting up with you! The Equipe friend is confused. He decides to ask you if you had any talk about your relationship with your wife. Ofcourse you had a talk about your relationship, you say, you're not inventing these things...! Now you are confused and start wondering why your wife is denying you had a talk about your relationship?

The equipe friend and the Cyclingnews friend have confirmation: While you only confirmed you had a constructive and serious relation talk with your wife, they now know for sure you were a disrespectful jerk that even dared to ask your wife to pack her bags if was done with the relationship! And your wife denying this, only confirmed to them that the poor wife is probably too shocked...!

So shortly after, you have another good talk with your wife, and the both of you quickly realize that all of your French and English 'friends' were lost in translation and only picked out what they wanted to hear (that your relationship is bad and you're at the point of splitting up), without having any attention for the bigger picture (the relationship is fine, but only if they put energy into it). So the wife decides to talk again to the French-speaking friend, to tell him that she indeed had a good talk, but that everything is fine.

But it's too late: your French / English-speaking "friends" are 100% prejudiced against you (and 100% supporting your wife). The rumour cannot be stopped anymore, and your reputation is gone. Weeks later, you are still a disrespectful jerk in their eyes, even if they see you are happy together.

Well, in the end, if PL has his mouth taken out of context (if what you say is true), it's because he has put his foot in it many times before. This isn't a case of journos crying wolf in false alarms, but that the wolf shows up, speaks his mind and they naturally hear hostile intent. So Patrick can't vest in sheeps clothing now and expect to be seen as docile (again if your take is correct).

 

[Breezy1985]

Is the laundry really that dirty here or is it journalists trying to find a story?

It's wrong to publicly claim riders are lying about being injured. I see no grey area or difference of opinion on that it's just wrong.

And the fact he does it to high paid riders close to the end of contracts makes me very suspicious.

 

[Bonimenier]

It's wrong to publicly claim riders are lying about being injured. I see no grey area or difference of opinion on that it's just wrong.

And the fact he does it to high paid riders close to the end of contracts makes me very suspicious.

It's still almost 2 years till the end of Ala's contract though. That's not really that close. There's only 3 riders on the whole team with longer contracts. And only 9 who are under contract in 2024, among them Ala.

 

[armchairclimber]

I do find PL to be an odious twerp but, after today, I'm beginning to think he may have a point.

 

[Breezy1985]

It's still almost 2 years till the end of Ala's contract though. That's not really that close. There's only 3 riders on the whole team with longer contracts. And only 9 who are under contract in 2024, among them Ala.

I read his contract was up in 2024 which I assumed meant it would need to be renegotiated this summer.

 

[IndianCyclist]

he has a new golden goose and the old one is no longer laying eggs so does not want to feed it.

 

[tobydawq]

I do find PL to be an odious twerp but, after today, I'm beginning to think he may have a point.

After today where Alaphilippe didn't win a January race in the cold and rain which are conditions under which he has always performed poorly?

 

[armchairclimber]

After today where Alaphilippe didn't win a January race in the cold and rain which are conditions under which he has always performed poorly?

There was a certain wry humour in my post. However, with just the final climb to come, he was actually in a reasonably good position and the team had worked hard all day to be up there. Looked a bit like "can't win, can't be arsed" to my untutored eye.

 

[cyandyeglove]

Some Olympic sports have very robust governing bodies that perform an outstanding job of advancing the sports and ensuring participant safety. UCI's safety record is not stellar; maybe some people need to be phased out of the system in order to improve things. quordle

 

[Berniece]

Some Olympic sports have very robust governing bodies that perform an outstanding job of advancing the sports and ensuring participant safety. UCI's safety record is not stellar; maybe some people need to be phased out of the system in order to improve things.

Not Lefevre. He has always pushed to advance cycling. It starts with a more robust, and better business model for teams that there currently is. With more power for the teams and riders. This was always stopped by the dinosaurs from UCI, and the money grabbers from ASO. He eventually just gave up, because it was clear nothing was about to happen.

Together with Richard Plugge (Jumbo) he is one of the people that took the lead in the reform of the UCI race model that will start in 2026, as well as discussion about TV rights, productising cycling and safety.

 

[Netserk]

Not Lefevre. He has always pushed to advance cycling. It starts with a more robust, and better business model for teams that there currently is. With more power for the teams and riders. This was always stopped by the dinosaurs from UCI, and the money grabbers from ASO. He eventually just gave up, because it was clear nothing was about to happen.

Together with Richard Plugge (Jumbo) he is one of the people that took the lead in the reform of the UCI race model that will start in 2026, as well as discussion about TV rights, productising cycling and safety.

"Advance"

 

[Berniece]

"Advance"

What don't you agree with? The new reformed race model, or that he tried to get money from the tv rights to the teams?

 

[Netserk]

What don't you agree with? The new reformed race model, or that he tried to get money from the tv rights to the teams?

Enriching teams and team owners is not the same as advancing the sport.

Teams have never been richer, not even close. Yet the only way to improve the sport is to direct more money to the teams.

Money is good. More money is better. So don't get me wrong, but only looking at it from the perspective and in the self interest of team-owners is too narrow.

 

[Berniece]

Enriching teams and team owners is not the same as advancing the sport.

Teams have never been richer, not even close. Yet the only way to improve the sport is to direct more money to the teams.

Money is good. More money is better. So don't get me wrong, but only looking at it from the perspective and in the self interest of team-owners is too narrow.

I think it's unfair to think it's only out of self interest. A lot of team owners and directors, like Lefevere, come from cycling themselves. They have a passion and love for the sport. So sure, more money towards teams will also result in more money for him personally, but that's not the only reason why they want to see the sport reformed.

It starts with their own team, but then money will go to the youth teams, safety of the riders, smaller races, etc. Because they love cycling, and are smart enough to understand that this will push the sport to higher heights.

 

[peterfin]

On the whole story with Alaphilippe: it's beyond me why one of the most experienced and successful general managers of a cycling team would "insult" one of his top riders who is still almost 2 years under contract because he wants to get rid of him or just shout out his anger. While the story is as usual blown out of proportions (which is something he probably knows before answering), the simple reality might be that he knows his riders all to well. He wants to provoke a reaction. We have seen this before. For example, in 2019, after Remco was 4th in the Tour of Turkey early in the season, he simply said that Remco was "too fat" to take the title. This again was a big controversy at that time but the reality was that Remco knew that this was the issue and was motivated to work on it with instant results.