• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Pablo Matera to fight for the survival of his International career?

I really think an apology should suffice, with a statement that he is a changed man. This world has gone crazy to dig up stuff from so long ago, and now his livelihood is in danger. Even criminals out of prison get a second chance. The world is mad.
 
Yes they didn't call out others for different stuff but it's just whataboutisms it still doesn't change the tweets.
What you call whataboutism the argentine judicial system calls equality before the law.

And yes, the law and common sense dictate that what Matera did is wrong (and illegal) but what you are missing is common practices. It is common practice to let these things go. They are non-issues. And i am not talking about a regular joe. I am talking the current president and vice president tweeting stuff that is at par with what Matera wrote. Not a single charge against them. Every single Argentine has read them.
But when Matera does it after DM's death, you have the Director of the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism asking for an investigation.

If you see a sign that says Max 100, and i tell a foreigner that someone was going at 110 and that's what i am penalizing him, it makes sense. If you see that every single day everyone goes at at 120 and no one is penalized, not so much.
It doesn't make what Matera did right. I think i was the first in this forum to bring it up and i said it was terrible and inexcusable. What i cant help myself is asking why him (other than the fact that he wrote that), why now?

Argentina's politics, regardless of side or inclinations, are 90% diversion and blameshifting. Maradona's funeral was a disaster. Rubber bullets, riot police with water cannons, the lot. We've had closed schools since March, people dying in hospitals are not allowed to say goodbye to their loved ones, both policies in the name of sanitary reasons, while t the same time the government organized a one million people marching funeral where no social distancing whatsoever is observed. The hooligans of every single team, from every division from every competition in the country, were or tried to be there.
They took the government building. This is not a euphemism. The president had to be evacuated in a helicopter, the vice president had to escape through an underground passage to adjacent buildings and some of the ministers had to barricade themselves in their offices. Let me say it again: hooligans jumped the fence and took the house of the executive power in Argentina.

The government needed to put the focus somewhere else and the pumas actions last weekend gave them the perfect way in against the perfect enemy.

This is not the act of people who care about human rights and are after Matera for what he did. This is a deliberate act to change the talking points and move the spotlight away from the government.
Does this make what Matera did right? Course not. He is/was an idiot. But it sheds light on why he is being targeted and how unfair people are towards him.


You don't want your dodgy tweets from when you are 18 dragged up for political point scoring?
True. The question then becomes why does a tweet like that cost a player his position under the banner of "you cant represent the country with those views" while the incumbent president and vice president of the bloody country have equivalent tweets. And this is not a tu quoque fallacy. This is the equivalent of sending all your armed forces to chase someone with a knife while everyone else is playing target practice with bazookas on the neighbourhood square. Congruence is important when it comes to the law. So does equality.

And the timing. You tell me this comes out of the blue last week, that someone fine-combed his tweets after the pumas won, and i'd say you have a point. A good point.
But this came to light only after DM's death. They needed a target, the pumas actions gave them a way in and Matera's tweets enough ammo to burry him for weeks. And he is the perfect target. Rich background, private school, rugby player, didn't pay homage to DM the way it was deemed by powers that be. They will make an example of him. They will make him the flag bearer of what anti-Argentines are.

Let me rephrase. I think what he did was terrible but i don't think what he will go through as punishment fits the crime. They will massacre him. His only chance of having a semi-normal life now is to live abroad.
 
I really think an apology should suffice, with a statement that he is a changed man. This world has gone crazy to dig up stuff from so long ago, and now his livelihood is in danger. Even criminals out of prison get a second chance. The world is mad.
He already has done that. No one cares. They need him down and they will continue to drag him through the mud as long as it takes.
 
Dragging up tweets from 2011 is sad but at the same time what Matera and others said wasn't acceptable. The comment about black people was unforgivable. It's correct that he's been stripped of the captaincy because it wouldn't be a good look to carry on but I don't think they should be crucified for it, everyone makes mistakes.
 
Anyone can apologize for something, it's crazy to me the amount of people who believe that as long as you say sorry everything is magically okay. I personally do believe his apology but that doesn't change what he said. I don't think he should never play international rugby again, but some time to show he is actually remorseful seems like a good idea to me.
 
The comment about black people was unforgivable.
You are right. Just to make it 100% clear, his comment about black people had absolutely nothing to do with race but with education, and socioeconomic position. It is just as bad, even worse if u will, but the meaning is different.
The comments about Bolivians are quite straightforward thou.
No matter the context, the interpretation, the audience, the tweets are all terrible.

He had the intention to offend (poor and poorly educated people). That's the difference between him and Cavani's post. Cavani used (almost) the same word but it is clear beyond any doubt Cavani had no intention whatsoever to offend anyone. His target audience was a specific person who, i guarantee you, did not feel offended.

I'm curious about one thing maybe one of the resident lawyers could shed some light. I know most pro athlete contact with clubs and sponsors have moral clauses. Do these apply to the actions since the contract is signed or do pre-existing events can trigger a clause too? Any idea what the standard is?
What ii find flabbergasting is that no one at UAR, tigers, SF, Visa, Nike, checked his social media. No one. These are people who stand to lose a lot of money and the task (checking his soc media content) would require an intern an afternoon to perform. It's mind-boggling.

Nike-Argentina protected its tweeter account because of how many people posted on their timeline about this.
 
Well I'll be using this as an object example to my children regarding a few matters:

1) Anything you say on social media can and may be used against you forever. Regardless of how harmless you thought it was at the time. You cannot trust strangers to have any empathy with your circumstances and will judge you harshly regardless.

2) Probably not best to be a horrible git in the first place.

Though on that first point, Jesus had a bit of a point on this one. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Now I imagine some fare better than others but I'm not picking up rocks in a hurry. I did and said things as a younger person that wouldn't have stood the test of time well. Some of them I would roll out the defense of childhood naivety (Joey Deacon anyone?). However, I was well capable of being a bit of an idiot at least into university. Luckily for me, my every moment / thought wasn't captured for posterity and thus I can walk away from those moments with nothing other than a sense of mild shame that I was an insensitive oik.

For me the important thing is what he thinks now. Is he still a racist / classist bigot? Well if he is (and I would argue he has that right) then he's not going to be representing his country any time soon and he absolutely can't be captain. If he isn't it's going to take a spectacular display of contrition to convince the people that will look to destroy him. Make no mistake, a virtual mob may not end you physically but then can rob you of a career / opportunities.
 
My issue is this.

"At that time I never imagined who I was going to become."

There is an implication he wouldn't have done it if he'd known he'd be famous, not because it was wrong.

Agree there are issues about digging up old quotes. I'm sure there are many ordinary people who could also be caught out if anyone was looking. I don't think people should be going around looking for old quotes/posts. However, if someone does find them that doesn't excuse the behaviour.
 
My issue is this.

"At that time I never imagined who I was going to become."

There is an implication he wouldn't have done it if he'd known he'd be famous, not because it was wrong.

Agree there are issues about digging up old quotes. I'm sure there are many ordinary people who could also be caught out if anyone was looking. I don't think people should be going around looking for old quotes/posts. However, if someone does find them that doesn't excuse the behaviour.

TBF that could mean a lot and it could also be someone mistranslated/misphrased.

For example it could be interpreted as he grew up and it doesn't reflect who he is now.

IDK that's me most likely giving him the benefit of the doubt. As reading it's translated version it isn't exactly coming across as the most apologetic thing
 
what he said was pretty bad. he's gotta suck it up and take his medicine.
should not end his career though
 
You are right. Just to make it 100% clear, his comment about black people had absolutely nothing to do with race but with education, and socioeconomic position. It is just as bad, even worse if u will, but the meaning is different.
The comments about Bolivians are quite straightforward thou.
No matter the context, the interpretation, the audience, the tweets are all terrible.

He had the intention to offend (poor and poorly educated people). That's the difference between him and Cavani's post. Cavani used (almost) the same word but it is clear beyond any doubt Cavani had no intention whatsoever to offend anyone. His target audience was a specific person who, i guarantee you, did not feel offended.

I'm curious about one thing maybe one of the resident lawyers could shed some light. I know most pro athlete contact with clubs and sponsors have moral clauses. Do these apply to the actions since the contract is signed or do pre-existing events can trigger a clause too? Any idea what the standard is?
What ii find flabbergasting is that no one at UAR, tigers, SF, Visa, Nike, checked his social media. No one. These are people who stand to lose a lot of money and the task (checking his soc media content) would require an intern an afternoon to perform. It's mind-boggling.

Nike-Argentina protected its tweeter account because of how many people posted on their timeline about this.
a question, are people in Argentina oblivious to how the vast majority of the rest of the world would take statement like that? my thoughts on things like this are if you need very specific or too much "context" to explain something...then the context becomes irrelevant

I cant get away with calling someone a N word because my group of friends know I mean it in a different sense (I wouldn't and don't)...this is the same argument just on a bigger scale

ive taken on board some of your comments about others, like your president, saying similar things and getting away with it. I think you should consider changing your perspective a bit. rather than being so understanding that he said something because that's what people say....maybe no one should be excused from saying it
 
a question, are people in Argentina oblivious to how the vast majority of the rest of the world would take statement like that?
Absolutely not, but the rest of the world is not part of that conversation.

Why would people care about what the rest of the world would take when both the sender and the receiver of the communication perfectly understand what is being communicated.
Let me elaborate a bit more because i find this important. Let make it simple.
A is Matera
B is his audience
C the subject (****** (in the argentine sense), bolivians, paraguayans, etc.) or someone who could be offended if his audience is not the subject
D is everyone else.

If A is saying something to B in a way that describes what he wants to express and in a way B understands exactly what A meant, why on earth would they adjust their vocabulary for D. If we are talking about C, sure, that is a valid argument, but for D? Hell no.

Cavani's post is an even better example
A: Cavani
B: His friend
C: lets say black uruguayans
D: everyone else

I guarantee you A, B and C all understood Cavani's message, Cavani meant no hard, his friend did not feel insulted and neither did black uruguayans. Should they change the way they communicate between themselves just because someone who wasn't part of the conversation (but has access to it) feels offended?
It's an interesting conversation, but intuitively i would say no.

I find extreme examples are the best one to illustrate arguments. Do you think a swastika tattoo means the same if worn by a white "insert nationality of your choice here" guy or a monk in Asia? I certainly wouldn't. Even if the monk is aware of the context with which that symbol has been/is used, i dont think it is fair to ask him to chance his ways because someone else feels offended when it is clear and obvious he had no intention to offend.


ive taken on board some of your comments about others, like your president, saying similar things and getting away with it. I think you should consider changing your perspective a bit. rather than being so understanding that he said something because that's what people say....maybe no one should be excused from saying it
I understand your point. I think i didn't explain myself properly enough thou. I am not saying he should get away with it nor that he should because of what other people say (maybe i did but in that case i didn't express myself properly, so allow me to remedy that). This is what i believe

- What he did was wrong
- The punishment doesn't fit the crime here.
- This one is important. For me it is one thing if say, you come and tell me, "hey, what Matera did is terrible, you can't have people like that representing your country", and a very different one if someone who knowingly disregarded comparable comments from people who represent us at a much higher level. Congruence is important. The first is an argument i would like to sit down and discuss over a beer. I can see both sides of the coin and find it interesting. I don't have a definitive answer. And if you forced me to guess an outcome i would probably concede.
The second one is a very different story and a no brainer. It's like going after a 10-year-old with a lemonade stand because he ain't paying VAT under the banner of "that is not permitted by the law" while the same law enforcement agencies willingly and knowingly let murderers get away. Congruence is important, especially when the ones in charge of enforcing and the same ones doing the deed.
 
I really think an apology should suffice, with a statement that he is a changed man. This world has gone crazy to dig up stuff from so long ago, and now his livelihood is in danger. Even criminals out of prison get a second chance. The world is mad.
Criminals still have to server their time first.
 
Criminals still have to server their time first.
I guess in that analogy, statue of limitations would come into it?

I'm not sure where I stand - horrible things to say, but at what point do we give the benefit of the doubt that it is long enough ago to let by? Does it depend on what is said? There are so many facets and its hard to be consistent.

I would suggest it has been a long time and unless there are any more recent examples or a pattern of that kind of behaviour / language in the long term then an apology and a condemnation of that kind of language / thought should suffice and everyone should move on.

If he meets that criteria, I see no issue with him remaining captain
 
As an Argentinian I want to give you an idea that is the opposite of that of my compatriot Cruz del Sur.
I believe that these opposing visions may interest our friends at the forum on other issues in Argentine rugby.
He said Matera was mistaken, but he was the object of a political complot steeped in hypocrisy.
I believe that this vision is very harmful to the development of rugby beyond its original circle. We are asked to be self-critical. Now is definitely not the time to be victimized. In this I fully support Agustin Pichot who says it clearly: "WE have to be self-critical".
As for the hypocrisy Cruz del Sur talks about ... This is precisely the argument that we are not entitled to make. The people of rugby in Argentina are known to exhibit "their values", the "values of rugby". Earlier this year, a group of rugby players from the privileged classes murdered a young class member.

"We're going to kill you black ****". These were the last words the boy heard before he died.

Outside the circle that plays rugby we are seen in Argentina as the height of hypocrisy.
To offload Matera, or at least to deflect attention, he seeks to put the government in the spotlight. I want to make it clear that the overwhelming majority of people who play rugby in Argentina vote against the current government (the Peronist government). Conversely, the common people vote for it.
It is time to unearth the presumption of moral superiority that reigns in Argentine rugby if we really aspire to popularize our sport
 
It is important to look at the origins of rugby in Argentina to understand the class contempt that predominates in our sport.

Rugby really gained strength in Argentina during the first Peronist government (40' & 50').
During these years the popular classes have a social rise and the government promotes the practice of sport for this population.
In reaction to this, the privileged classes "take refuge" in rugby, which constitutes a sort of separate and "sanitized" space for people.
Needless to say, the privileged classes have always hated Peronism as the bearer of the voice of those below.
Peronism, with varying degrees of success, overturned certain social hierarchies. The reaction as you can imagine was virulent on the side of the privileged classes and the mentality that reigns in Argentinian rugby bears the mark.

The hateful twits of Matera, Petty and Socino cannot be understood if we overlook the historical origins of rugby.

Fortunately, rugby the promotion of rugby has progressed in Argentina and exceeds the sole circle of privileged classes.

However, it still preserves the values of its original core.
 
Maybe there should be a system of punishments then.
For example:
He posted/said things like that once (even years ago) → he's removed as the captain for a short term period (till one year)
He did it twice → he's removed as the captain for a long term period
For the 3rd time → end of his international career
 
Slap him with whatever rules they have re: bringing the game into disrepute
Fine, short ban, apology etc.
 

Latest posts

Top