A Blast From The Past-Wine Division According to Then Recently "Retired" Spanish wine critic Jay Miller of Robert M. Parker, Jr.'s The Wine Advocate, Great Wine Can Be Equated to Pornography

* * * * *

"Whether I am in front of (great?) porno or a great wine I (can recognize) either without difficulty". -- Robert M. Parker, Jr.'s The Wine Advocate's Spanish wine critic Jay Miller in an interview with Barcelona’s La Vanguardia, January 2011.

  Jay Miller in Catalunya. 
(Photo: La Vanguardia.)

"For The Wine Advocate’s (then just "retired," some said he was forced to retire because of the Pancho Campo Spanish wine scandal!) Spanish Wine Critic Jay Miller a great wine, a wine with 100 Parker points, is one capable of moving you. He adds that "it is the one who makes you live a great experience, that makes you exclaim wow!".

He said that it is difficult to express in words, but compared the experience with the pornography: "Whether I am in front of (great?) porno or a great wine I (can recognize) either without difficulty"."

In an interview with Barcelona’s La Vanguardia (January 2011), Spain’s Equivalent of The New York Times.

The Wine Advocate's Robert M. Parker, Jr. Did He Not Begin as a Paper "Blogger," in the Days Before the Internet?

* * * * *

“It has been said often enough that anyone with a pen, notebook, and a few bottles of wine can become a wine critic. And that is exactly the way I started when, in late summer 1978, I sent out a complimentary issue of what was then called the Baltimore/Washington Wine Advocate.” -- From THE ROLE OF ROBERT M. PARKER, JR. and OUR WINE CRITIC ETHICS and STANDARDS on erobertparker.com   

* * * * *

The Two Faces of  Robert Parker.  Parker in La Rioja for Pancho Campo's Controversial WineFutures-Rioja Conference 2009. Photo: Larioja.com

Is "blogger" a pejorative term? Parker and Pancho Campo seem to think so. Was not Parker, starting The Wine Advocate, before the advent of the internet, in fact a paper blogger?  Wasn't Parker, the "newsletterist," indeed a early blogger himself.

From Robert Parker's statement about the possibility of lawsuits against "these bloggers" threat posted on erobertparker.com and copied on several websites.

"This blogger posted about Miller/Campo charging for tasting Spanish wines or for visiting Spanish wineries a while ago.We launched an investigation at that time despite the fact that both Miller/Campo denied all the allegations. We found no substance or truth to any of the allegations. Now he has brought similar charges. This time we have requested our lawyers to fully examine every allegation again, and they have also retained an additional lawyer, from Madrid, to study the allegations, and if again false, consider legal action. Jay chooses and controls 100% of the wines he tastes and wineries he visits.

He (used) the Spanish Wine Academy (Pancho Campo (was) the President) to assist in organization. We would never permit a winery to pay us for the privilege of tasting their wine or visiting the winery. Moreover, Campo also understands his organization cannot charge wineries for Miller's visits. Both of them have full knowledge that is an appalling conflict of interest that would not be tolerated under any circumstance.* There have been trade conferences organized by the Spanish Wine Academy that Jay has been paid a fee of $10,000 (which seems reasonable) and far less than the amounts reported by this blogger.

I have been asked by our USA lawyers to refrain from commenting about this given the potential lawsuits by Jay, by Pancho, and possibly by TWA against these bloggers. Until we are 100% certain of all the facts, I think this subject, which appears to be a reckless and malicious disregard for the truth and clearly aimed at damaging Miller, Campo, and TWA, needs to be closed."- - Posted by Robert M. Parker, Jr. on eRobertParker.com on December 1 and copied on several forums.

The Distancing Begins: Jancis Robinson's Read on Pancho Campo MW, "the (now ex) Spanish specialist wine reviewer" (Jay Miller) and "the supposed beacon of probity Robert Parker" in her review of 2011

* * * * * 

The Distancing Begins

Jancis Robinson interviews Portuguese winemaker Dierk Von Di Niepoort 
at the WineCreator conference in Ronda, 2008.  

Photo by Gerry Dawes©2008 / gerrydawes@aol.com

Jancis Robinson, who supported Pancho Campo as an MW candidate, gives her read on Pancho Campo MW, Jay Miller*, Robert Parker and WineFuture Hong Kong in her review of the year:

"The wine topic of the year on blogs and online fora, at least among the wine writers who dominate them, has been wine writer ethics. Acres of cyberspace have been devoted to the sometimes jaw-dropping conduct of Spain's first Master of Wine and event organiser Pancho Campo. 

Allegations have been made that Campo asked for sums from producer associations for access to the (now ex) Spanish specialist wine reviewer* for America's leading wine writer and supposed beacon of probity Robert Parker. The matter is now being investigated and Campo denies any wrongdoing.  

His last major event was WineFuture, an ambitious international wine conference in Hong Kong at which the three tastings, for 1,000 tasters, were led by me, Parker and Campo. In retrospect it does not look good that much of Campo's tasting was taken up with films of his arrival at various wineries in a Ferrari."**-- jancisrobinson.com©2011

*Is Jay Miller getting dropped down the memory hole here?  He is not even mentioned by name in the article, just Robert Parker, his boss. 

**Italics and underlining by GD.

__________________________________________________________________________________  

About Gerry Dawes   

Gerry Dawes was awarded Spain's prestigious Premio Nacional de Gastronomía (National Gastronomy Award) in 2003. He writes and speaks frequently on Spanish wine and gastronomy and leads gastronomy, wine and cultural tours to Spain. 

Dawes was awarded the Food Arts Silver Spoon Award in a profile written by José Andrés. "

 

Pilot for a proposed reality television series on wine, gastronomy, culture and travel in Spain.

(Filmed in Valencia and Alicante.)

Adventures in Spanish Taste: Insider's Food, Wine, Cultural and Photographic Travel in Spain


The Traveling Gastronomer: A Celebration of Food, Wine, Life, Photography & Quixotic Musings

The Spanish Artisan Wine Group


Gerry Dawes can be reached at gerrydawes@aol.com

The UK "Drinks Business" Top Ten Stories of 2011; The Pancho Campo-Jay Miller-Robert Parker Wine Advocate Controversy & the Masters of Wine Institute's Investigation into Campo's Activities in Spain is Number Eight

* * * * *

Top 10 drinks stories of 2011

The Drinks Business

As the year draws to a close, a scandal currently holds the wine industry in thrall.

The Institute of Masters of Wine (IMW) announced in December that it was opening an investigation into the conduct of Pancho Campo MW following allegations the president and founder of The Wine Academy of Spain charged Spanish wineries up to €40,000 for a visit from Jay Miller of The Wine Advocate.

Announcing the formal investigation, an IMW statement said: “Membership of the Institute and the right to use the title Master of Wine is reserved for those individuals who have passed all aspects of the Masters of Wine Examination, agreed to abide by the Institute’s formal Code of Conduct and who remain members in good standing.

“In the event that a breach of the Code is proven, a range of sanctions is available to it.

“Having received a formal complaint into Pancho Campo MW’s alleged conduct, the Institute of Masters of Wine has opened an investigation.”

Campo had already moved swiftly to deny any wrongdoing, issuing a statement through The Wine Academy of Spain which said: “The Wine Academy of Spain never requested from any wineries monies for the visits of Jay Miller or for tasting their wines.

“All the expenses for Jay Miller to travel to Spanish wine regions to taste and review wines were covered by The Wine Advocate, including his transportation, accommodation, meals and any other related expenses,” the statement continued.

According to Campo, the only occasion when fees had been charged were for “the organisation, setup and management of events that included seminars, conferences, masterclasses and guided tastings, which were open to the public,” but that “None of these fees were ever paid to The Wine Advocate.”

Miller has since resigned from The Wine Advocate, but denied his stepping down had anything to do with the Spain debacle. “Some may believe my stepping down is in response to my critics, nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

“I have never accepted (or request) fees for visiting wine regions or wineries.”

The wine world will wait with baited breath for the outcome of the IMW enquiry in the new year.

Related posts on: 

Gerry Dawes's Spain: An Insider's Guide to Spanish Food, Wine, Culture and Travel

• The Institute of Masters of Wine Launches An Inves...
• El Silencio de los Corderos, The Silence of the La...
• UPDATE (Dec. 15 & 16) to An Explosive Article From...
• The Worst Taste* of Campo and Miller: Another Top...
• A long, hard look at the Spanish cash for access s...
• American Tom Perry, a Long-time Veteran Wineman Li...
• According to Recently "Retired" Spanish wine crit...
• "(Robert M.) Parker is God’s fool for associating ...
• David Schildknecht of The Wine Advocate's Statemen...
• Ryan Opaz of Catavino to Pancho Campo: "You just ...
• My hat is off to you Mr. Pancho Campo. Andrés Aré...
• Robert M. Parker Jr.'s Ethical Standards
• The Wine Advocate's Robert M. Parker, Jr. Did He ...
• Neal Martin, Jay Miller's replacement for reviewin...
• No Way!! Under Pressure Over the Mounting Pancho ...
• Spain's Top Writer José Peñin on the Pancho Campo-...
• From Kosolo on Wine, The Hades of Parker ". . . th...
• Who pays wine critics? The Pancho Campo, MW - Jay...

 

El Silencio de los Corderos, The Silence of the Lambs, Musings by Alberto Gil, A Journalist from La Rioja Who Reported on the 2009 Pancho Campo-Interpol and Robert Parker WineFuture Rioja Controversy

* * * * *

Veteran Riojan journalists Alberto Gil (l) and Casimiro Somalo (r) of http://larioja.com at a friendly 
gathering of several wine lovers at the popular traditional restaurant, El Lagar, in Logroño, La Rioja. 
Photo by Gerry Dawes©2010 / gerrydawes@aol.com.

Some people in Spain suspect that Alberto Gil, a veteran journalist in La Rioja may have been the Deep Throat source of information about Pancho Campo before the highly controversial WineFuture Rioja 2009 event.  The reports from larioja.com and investigations by Alberto Gil led to Jim Budd of Jim's Loire, a British investigative wine journalist to take an interest in the Pancho Campo - Robert M. Parker, Jr. connection.  

Gil's direct involvement in investigating Campo and the Interpol warrant caused Campo to resign under pressure (most agreed in name only)  before the WineFuture Rioja 2009 event and appoint American Kevin Zraly as his successor as Director of the event (Zraly was considered Pancho Campo's "straw man" for the event by many observers.)  Nonetheless, Campo showed up to run the event, speak at the event, sit on panels and participate in formal wine tastings. 

Robert M. Parker, Jr. of The Wine Advocate was paid a purported 100,000 Euros for appearing at WineFuture Rioja.  During the event, at his request a master tasting was planned using Garnacha-based wines, all of which came from outside La Rioja, including several from neighboring Aragón.  This scheduled tasting, as more people became aware of it, caused such a row that even politicians from La Rioja got involved and the tasting was done with the addition of the very rare bodega library wine, Marqués de Riscal 1947, and Contador, a modern Rioja wine with no Garnacha, both of which were belatedly put into the tasting in an attempt to appease increasingly vociferous critics. 

As it turned out, in that WineFuture Rioja 2009 Garnacha tasting with Robert M. Parker, Jr., Parker's friend, Spaniard Jorge Ordoñez*, who imports Spanish wines into the United States under his Jorge Ordoñez - Fine Estates From Spain label, had three wines in the tasting while the Comunidad de La Rioja and the La Rioja D.O., sponsors of the event, had just two.  

The score was like a soccer match: Ordoñez 3, La Rioja 2.  The irony was not lost on journalists like Alberto Gil, who love their wine region and chafed under seeing La Rioja get the short end of the stick in this tasting.

(*For many years Ordoñez has enjoyed an especially close relationship with Parker.  Jay Miller's first trip to Spain as Parker's Spain "expert" taster was with Ordoñez, a trip** that was purportedly quite a bit more lavish than the one Miller took with Ordoñez when Miller was working as a partner in a Baltimore retail.) 

(**From Robert M. Parker Jr.'s Ethical Standards [Copied directly from www.erobertparker.com]
"In order to pursue this independence effectively, it is imperative that I keep a distance from the trade. While this may be misinterpreted as aloofness, such independence guarantees hard hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary. . .

. . . The same standards of tasting free of external influence as well as unbiased reviews I have followed for 30+ years are expected from all independent wine critics working on assignments for The Wine Advocate or eRobertParker.com. . .
 
. . . All writers hired as independent contractors must certify that they maintain rigid standards of independence and integrity, writing about what is in the bottle, free of external pressure. . .
 
. . . I have kept the wine trade at arm’s length over the last three plus decades, and I realize that as rigorously high as my own particular standards are, it is neither possible nor realistic to expect such standards with the independent wine critics who work for me. . .) 

The following is Alberto Gil's latest take on the situation in an article posted on larioja.com.  

(I have tweaked the Google translation.  I apologize in advance for any quirks.)

El silencio de los corderos
(The Silence of the Lambs***)

by Alberto Gil, larioja.com

14 December 2011

(***The title refers the nearly universal silence of the Spanish press that during the 2009 Pancho Campo-Interpol-WineFuture Rioja controversy, during which it was claimed that many journalists were threatened with legal action, a claim now confirmed by some who are now speaking out and writing about the current so-called Murcia-Jumilla gate controversy.)

"I remember two issues in my professional career in which journalistic passion carried me to extremes. One of them is known, (it was) a false accusation filed in court for alleged assault on the mother of the clan by the family of a former woman vice president of the government of La Rioja, Arancha Vallejo, because of (my) reporting on the illegal uprooting of a vineyard. (GD: Albert Gil was proved innocent of what was a trumped up charge against a journalist for reporting on illegal activities.)

The other was the case with Pancho Campo, who landed in Logroño with WineFuture Rioja 2009, with full institutional support and (with support) from major wineries that had been placed on the organizing committee.  Pancho Campo enticed to some of the top wine experts on earth to Logroño, for an event that initially was supposed to take place in Jerez, but changed course at the last minute because of money considerations.  Among them was Robert Parker (The Wine Advocate), who had never before shown interest in wines of this country.

Campo had been convicted in absentia (he “cut out” before trial) and was sentenced to a year in prison in UAE (The United Arab Emirates) in 2003 for allegedly swindling a million dollars (reportedly €650,000) from his ex-partner as a music concert promoter and was being sought by Interpol.  When we asked for explanations about this fact, months before WineFuture Rioja, Campo endlessly lied to the organization, but WineFuture Rioja went on anyway and eventually resulted in the embarrassing awarding of the the (Spanish) Medal of Merit to Robert Parker.

Pancho, whose company had been previously convicted for non-payment for a 'festival' in Barcelona, always maintained in Rioja that his problem with Interpol was the result of an alleged plot against him that had been concocted through the extraordinary influence and money of his former partner in Dubai, Jackie Wartanian.  During several months (of investigating) I never met anyone able to confirm this far-fetched story. The journalist Jim Budd, in Decanter, published on September 4, 2009 the arrest warrant from Interpol against Campo, after which not one national or regional publication paid attention to this news.

After the explosion in Decanter, the pressure on Pancho Campo--police sources confirmed to me personally that Campo, despite what he had claimed, had been rescued from extradition to United Arab Emirates by an agreement with the Spanish Council of Ministers in 2008 and was fully aware of the facts of the (real) charges against him--was too much and he was forced to resign from the Wine Future (as Director of the event).

Just days before the (WineFuture Rioja) event, after a private dinner, which I attended, he was asked to resign after failing to prove, as he had assured the Rioja officials who had made him their spokesman he could, that he had never been arrested, or detained, in Spain because of  the international United Arab Emirates arrest warrant.  And he also claimed that he never knew anything about the case (in Dubai) until just a few months before, when the reality is that he had fled the United Arab Emirates in 2003 to to avoid prosecution. Namely, the whole string of lies-- which also included the use of veiled threats of the best and most prestigious law firms--with which (Campo) sustained his claim of an alleged plot (in Dubai) collapsed.

Pancho, at least then, could count on powerful "godfather-like"figures such as the President of the Spanish Academy of Gastronomy, Rafael Anson, among others, and the complicit attitude of the Spanish and international wine press, which, even though now the fire had been fueled, turned a deaf ear on WineFuture Rioja.

Now, Jim Budd (Jim’s Loire), as he did in September of 2009, has returned to uncover another scandal. Campo, through his The Wine Academy company, has been charging thousands of dollars to bring Robert Parker’s (now former) critic for Spanish wines, Jay Miller, to give lectures at different Spanish denominations of origin events, a business that is difficult to explain about a person who assesses and rates Spanish wines for the most influential publication of the wine world, precisely, one that preaches independence (free of outside influences).

The Wine Advocate has fired Jay Miller (GD note: the official line is that he “retired,” something they are now saying has been in the works since January.)  Now, the British wine writer Neal Martin has replaced Miller as the Wine Advocate’s Spanish wine taster.  Martin, until now responsible for South Africa, New Zealand and Sauternes, who in 2006 certainly said that he was neither interested or did he know anything about Spanish wines.

As a good friend told me during Wine Future Rioja 2009, "the flexibility of a reed supports a gale better than the rigidity of an oak tree, and, if you want to see this liar fall, you had better learn to be a little more flexible*."  (*GD note: The friend advised Alberto Gil to let up on his journalistic crusade because Gil was almost fired from his job.  He suggested that Gil should not matyr himself, predicting that Campo would eventually self-destruct.)

(PDTA: With many greetings to the disbelieving journalists and bloggers, like myself, Jim Budd, Gerry Dawes, Harold (Heckle) and Manuel Camblor, who saw Pancho Campo walk with head held high during Wine Future Rioja 2009, with the approval of the entire wine sector, the politicians and the Spanish press.")

Spain's Top Wine Writer José Peñin on the Pancho Campo-Wine Advocate-Robert M. Parker Jr., Jay Miller "Pay for Play" So-called "Murciagate" Controversy

* * * * *

José Peñin and Gerry Dawes in New York.

Here is my rough translation of José Peñin’s (Spain's top wine writer) post on elmundovino.com concerning the Pancho Campo-Jay Miller-Robert M. Parker, Jr. controversy, which has been called "Pay for Play." Many critics--professional bloggers like Dr. Vino, Mike Steinberger's Wine Diarist  and British writer Jim Budd and non-professional bloggers like Arto Koskelo's koskeloonwine (his Hades of Parker is brilliant)--believe that documented evidence (obtained from various sources) suggests that Miller's reviews of Spanish wines in The Wine Advocate are being influenced by "speaking fees" of up to $15,000 (verified from an event in Navarra).  

Documented reports of other solicited payments for "appearance" and "speaking" fees in Murcia and Madrid have also been reported and Miller was reportedly paid for an appearance at another early December "cata magistral" (master tasting) conducted by Pancho Campo with only the wines of the D.O. Valencia, which footed the 35,000 Euro Pancho Campo Wine Academy of Spain bill.  

Reports of what was paid (if anything) a few day's later for Miller's appearance in the obscure Málaga denominación de origen or in Jerez de la Frontera have not yet surfaced.

I have changed some of the literal translation to refect what the statement actually means.  If any one sees any errors in this regard, please point them out and I will gladly correct them.

Below are Peñin's observations from his post on elmundovino.com, which are the first we have seen from an important Spanish wine writer, with the execption of some post comments by elmundovino.com's Victor de la Seran.  The rest of the Spanish wine press, many of whom have reportedly received payments from Pancho Campo's The Wine Academy for events (and in 2009, reports of lawyers representing Pancho Campo threatening them with legal action), has been notoriously silent on the issue.

José Peñin on elmundovino.com: 

"The matter is very clear. Parker, as any writer or journalist, charged for a non-binding presentation or a tasting as he has done in the two WineFuture events (in La Rioja and in Hong Kong).

Any time that a personality wearing his journalistic cloak is invited by an institution, consortium or collective to visit an area and therefore taste their wines (for review), he must not charge a penny. It is my understanding that Jay Miller comes to accomplish this type of journalistic work and reflects it in (his tasting notes reports) in The Wine Advocate.

What seems to me outrageous is that in this (presumed) work, which is supposed to be informative and independent, that he uses an an intermediary, like one of those managers of stars who charge their clients (for appearances), which makes one feel like he (Miller) is being served up on a plate, which is like something out of a soap opera.

Does Jay (Miller) actually charge more than his travel expenses? I don't think so. In other years Jay Miller tasted Spanish wines in his own country and did not charge for it (tasting the wines). The costs of (Miller’s) travel (to and in Spain) and for his stay in our country have nothing to do with the figure of 20,000 euros charged by the intermediary, in this case Pancho (Campo), and this logically is reprehensible because surreptiously it puts a price on the announcement "Jay (Miller) is coming to taste Spanish wines that will appear in (his reviews) in The Wine Advocate."

Pancho (Campo) wrote in this forum (elmundovino.com) that the (various) D. O.(s) contracted him (Miller) for various events. Yes, but not because of the importance and and popularity of you (Pancho Campo), nor even the Jay Miller, but due to the significance of the famous newsletter (The Wine Advocate) that is directed by the true guru who is (Robert M.) Parker.

I have transmitted to Pancho that even bringing Miller to tour Spain as a favor without other pecuniary condition should have been left in the hands of someone from his (Campo's) team (to make arrangements). I told him that his rapidly growing reputation for accompanying Parker’s (Robert M. Parker, Jr. of The Wine Advocate) is not going to end well. 

Pancho (Campo) is a Master of Wine and the prestige obtained not only by the organization of the two important WineFutures events, as well as those Climate Change events, but also his educational activity of spreading (knowledge) about Spanish wines in the world, is being threatened by this “Miller circus.”

And there is Jim Budd’s long epistle (about the Pancho Campo, Jay Miller, Robert M. Parker so-called Murciagate affair).

Friend Pancho, I think it will cost you sweat and tears to put your next Wine Futures event together (because of this “circus”).

UPDATE (Dec. 15 & 16) to An Explosive Article From A Top Spanish Wine Journalist Giving Background on The Pancho Campo - Jay Miller - Robert M. Parker, Jr. - The Wine Advocate Controversy with a Link to Jay Miller's Answer on elmundovino.es

* * * * *

Update #2:  Dec. 15 For those who read Spanish or who want to run the article through Google translator to get a rough translation, in a piece entitled JAY MILLER RESPONDE A ANTONIO CASADO La verdad es muy otra published on the elmundovino.es website, Jay Miller defends himself pretty well against the contentions made about him in the Antonio Casado article (below) also published on the elmundovino.es website.  However, Miller does not answer the allegations that are the basis of the Pancho Campo-Jay Miller-Robert Parker controversy.

Update #1:  A translation with slightly different nuances of this Antonio Casado piece just came out on Dec. 15 in Meininger's Wine Business International, two days after I posted my own translation, which was gently tweaked by elmundovino.es Managing Editor Victor de la Serna.  You may enjoy reading both of these translations.)  

Jay Miller doing "freelance" tasting in Navarra for The Wine Advocate, on a trip for which Pancho Campo and his Wine Academy of Spain is reported  to have charged 100,000 Euros, out of which Miller was purportedly paid 10,000 Euros.  At least, we presume, there was no "cat piss" in these wines (see article below). 
(GD caption and not an http://elmundovino.es photo.)

For the last couple of weeks, during The Pancho Campo - Jay Miller - Robert M. Parker, Jr. - The Wine Advocate controversy going on in Spain, most of the reporting his been done by foreign journalists and journalist-bloggers such as myself, England's Jim Budd (Jim's Loire), Mike Steinberger (Wine Diarist), Tyler Colman (Dr. Vino), Tom Perry (Inside Rioja), W. Blake Gray (The Gray Report) and Harold Heckle of The Associated Press working on his own and co-signing some research with Jim Budd.

As this controversy has grown, speculation grew about why Spanish journalists were keeping quiet, then on Dec. 4 Spain's top wine writer, José Peñin, broke the silence in a post on elmundovino.es, the top wine web site in Spain (see Spain's Top Writer José Peñin on the Pancho Campo-Wine Advocate-Robert M. Parker Jr., Jay Miller "Pay for Play" So-called "Murciagate" Controversy in my English translation on this blog).  

The next day, Dec. 5, en a piece entitled TRAS LA POLÉMICA POR EL CASO 'MURCIA-GATE'
Cesa Jay Miller, el hombre de Parker (Following the Controversy over the "Murcia-Gate Case; Jay Miller, Parker's Man (in Spain) Resigns), elmundovino.es added their official voice. 

The piece begins with: “The world of Spanish wine, whose eyes and ears had been piously closed in the face of growing controversy surrounding the presence in Spain of Jay Miller, the taster for ‘The Wine Advocate’, Robert Parker's publication, is now possibly dumbfounded, but the news is this: Miller left that post on December 4, and will be replaced by the British writer Neal Martin, who until now covered South Africa, New Zealand and Sauternes for The Wine Advocate. It is not yet known if The Wine Academy of Spain, the company of Pancho Campo, will continue to organize visits to Spain by Martin.”

On Sunday, Dec. 11, the cork popped out of the bottle with a loud report that has reverberated around Spain and soon, no doubt, around the world of wine.  In an explosive piece were some startling revelations by a prominent Spanish wine journalist and educator, Antonio Casado, who recounts personal experiences he had over a period of several years with both Pancho Campo and Jay Miller. The piece makes for fascinating reading.

 

EL TESTIMONIO DE UN PERIODISTA DEL VINO Campo-Miller, un recuerdo personal

ANTONIO CASADO 

The Testimony of a Wine Journalist; Campo-Miller, a Personal Recollection 
by Antonio Casado, a prominent Spanish journalist and wine educator. 

(It should be noted that elmundovino.es is run by the Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, and the jefe of the web page is Victor de la Serna, a famous Spanish journalist, who was educated at Columbia University in New York and is the Deputy Director of El Mundo itself.  This article was not published without being vetted by elmundovino.es and this translation was reviewed and corrected and its publication was authorized by Victor de la Serna.)

Here is the entire piece by Antonio Casado (color highlighting and underlining are mine, GD):

"During the past week the social networks have been filled with photographs of two wine characters, Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW (Master of Wine), into whose proximity chance led me some years ago. I hope this brief (or not so brief) memory serves to shed some light on the controversy that has recently flooded the web.

I will begin like this: It was during the first months of 2007 and, I had just started my journey with the people of Vino y Gastronomía as technical director of the La Nariz de Oro (the Golden Nose sommelier competition in Spain) and chief wine editor of that pernicious wine publication, after nearly five years under the infinitely more stimulaing and generous wing of José Peñín, when the news broke: Jay Miller, the taster Robert Parker had appointed a few months back for the tasting and scoring of Spanish wines (among others), had awarded 100 points to five wines from Spain.

Without thinking, knowing that he owned a wine shop in Baltimore (or at least was a shareholder in it), I called and asked to speak with him. The girl who answered told me that since joining the team of 'The Wine Advocate', Jay had left the business (I guess that's an issue close to the ever-delicate appearance of a conflict of interest), but nonetheless she ended up offering me Miller's e-mail address and I wrote a very amiable and even amusing interview request, to which Miller agreed in a matter of hours.

At first I thought of sending a written set of questions and settle the matter in a practical but impersonal way, but after a little reflection I opted for something better. A week later I flew to Washington, from where I went on a rickety train to Baltimore. Jay, in an extraordinary gesture of humility, came to pick me up at the station.

We went to eat at a mediocre French restaurant, drank (plenty of) French wine, we talked for three hours about anything and everything, but mostly (and without a recorder in between us) we discussed how to practice criticism. I could see, in general terms, that our character was a good guy, friendly and pleasant enough, a big eater and drinker and just a mediocre taster.

The most revealing of his "confessible admissions" was, in addition to confirming that he had never set foot in Spain, getting to know how a doctor (hence the "Dr." which he used at the time in front of his name) in child psychology had risen to a position as a critic with such a big responsibility: He and Robert Parker himself had belonged for several decades to a local wine tasting club (called something like "Oenarchs" or "Monarchs of Wine"), and Parker's  loss of confidence in his former tasting team (also with them I remember there was controversy) led him to prefer someone close and highly reliable to someone with a better wine-related résumé.

After lunch, he suggested – I guess because he had good feelings towards me and /or my professional profile – doing the "official" interview in his own home. So he drove me in his car to an old farmhouse about 30 or 40 miles from the city, a dark wooden one-story building just fifteen minutes from where (Robert M.) Parker lived.  From the time we crossed the threshold of his house, all the luminosity and nimbleness in his conversation seemed to turn to shadows, darkness and a high degree of melancholy whose origin was revealed to me in the next few minutes when, before sitting for the interview, he showed a more then interesting cellar, full of fine wines but also lots of photos of him and Parker, mostly in France, and accompanied by Jay's wife, who had died just three years earlier.

It was remarkable how the critic seemed to have vanished and the role of relatively recent widower had monopolized his immense self.  Back upstairs he showed me his work space, a large room with many windows in the center of which was a large, solid wooden table surrounded by a sea of  bottles, mostly Chilean wines whose tasting he told me he would begin the next day.

The secret of the 100 points

There were several things that struck me at once: the number of bottles and random arrangement on the ground meant that the question of "optimal tasting temperature" was not among Jay's priorities. Neither were the product and its nature being respected exactly, since white, red and rosé rubbed shoulders, and (evidence) of the many cats that lived with Jay (I guess as a logical formula to try to alleviate his loneliness) was rampant among labels of the sauvignon blancs whose fidelity to the traditional tasting note of "cat piss" I fancied was going to be singularly (spot on) accurate. 

Fourth, I found that the only object on the table was the English edition of the 2007 Wine Guide of my mentor, José Peñín, of which I had been coordinator and head taster (for almost 5,000 of the 7,500 samples tasted), which represented my last work for the publishing house in Madrid's Arga street, only a few months before.

Jay's surprise at seeing my picture on the overleaf was as big as my later observation (back in Spain) that most of the scores of 'The Wine Advocate' for Spanish wines that year were suspiciously close to those contained in the Peñín edition. We finally sat down for an interview that was less appealing than anticipated because, as I said, Miller's mood at home was tinged with melancholy, and in the interview the most notable revelation was that his "hundred points" to each of five Spanish wines were those of a man who found himself between "a rock and a hard place."

His boss, Robert Parker, had given 99 points in the previous vintage, 2003, to the same five wines, and given the evidence that the subsequent 2004 vintage was noticeably better, Miller had no choice but to push (the same wines' scores) to the highest level, forcing him to bid higher and add, exactly and compulsorily, one point to each.

Since the day had  lasted longer than expected, what with the long lunch and the automobile trip to his home, the rush to return to Baltimore made me forget my overcoat on the rack at the entrance (to Miller's home).  Later, I asked him about it, but he said that he had not found it in his house.  I suspect that cats had turned the coat into an exact replica of Buffalo Bill's fringe-lined coat.

Two years later, in spring 2009, as I was about to return from Ciudad Real on the shuttle train after the last day of Fenavin (the La Mancha wine fair), a few minutes before leaving, in the station bar, I ran into the newly proclaimed Master of Wine (MW), Pancho Campo, and his large entourage.  Among his most fervent apostles was Esteban Cabezas, at the time the manager of Campo's equally new Wine Academy of Spain, with whom I sat during the entire return trip (to Madrid).  Esteban, with a mix of excitement and speed (of both the train and his speech), told me that they were looking for a taster with a profile very similar to mine, with extensive knowledge of Spanish wine, but with ability to communicate in English, to replace Pancho in several courses in the U.S. to which he was committed, and that for, officially, health reasons he would not be able to carry out.

In late June and with only two days notice, I was called and told that the "casting" would take place the following weekend. The first day consisted of a touchdown with Pancho and his method of tasting, no different (perhaps only simplified) from that used by the Masters of Wine and WSET, the institute whose courses of study necessarily precede the conclusion of the title. Of that day I remember both the mastery Campo had of the tempo in his speech and the more than evident mediocrity of his deductive method in blind tasting, which for the WSET is a vital aspect in its training of tasters.

At the end of the day the participants were ordered to prepare for the next morning a half-hour presentation on a given region, in my case the Rias Baixas. In the morning, the tasters marched one after another, each with his presentation, always with more shadows than lights and without ever exacting the slightest emotion fron Pancho. After mine, however, I received spontaneous and literally public applause from him.

Obviously I don't have and I don't think I ever will have Campo's stage presence, his absolute and stunning ease on it, but I think I defended with sufficient solvency, knowledge of the region and fluency in English my assigned half an hour.

As a reward I was given the first transatlantic course, which was to take place in Denver (Colorado) just two weeks later. The night before the flight, I finally received the PowerPoint presentation through Esteban Cabezas, who was to accompany me as the manager of the Wine Academy. That delay didn't bode well, on top of the poor quality of the material I received, which to begin with was entirely inadequate to cover a three-day program. My worst fears were largely confirmed when, after reaching Denver, we learned that we wouldn't be receiving some of the wines that were to be tasted during the course, which Esteban decided to replace with other wines, of very poor quality, purchased at bargain-basement prices in one of the local shops. (My italics, GD)

The course designed by Pancho Campo and promoted as a kind of master's degree in Spanish wine consisted of two days during which a more or less superficial approach to the different wine regions was offered, with tastings of wines from these regions, and a third day with two exams for students: a very simple, test-type exam on any one of the issues raised during the first two days, and a blind tasting in which they had to identify eight wines from among those tasted during the preceding days. However, they were offered a list of the wines, which made it easy to solve any doubt (for example, with the fortified wines, which are already sufficiently detected through their color and their nature).

From the very beginning the students present showed a high level of knowledge about tasting and a low level of adjustment both to the banality of the syllabus (the chapters devoted to promoting Andalucía with 'rebujito' (fino sherry with 7-Up) and the Seville Feria were embarrassing examples), so in spite of my efforts and those of Esteban Cabezas (to tell the truth more interested in rigorously following Pancho's syllabus than in trying to mitigate the students' growing indignation), after the lunch break a small group, speaking in name of the entire class, approached me to explain that either we changed the format and contents (in other words the whole seminar!) or they were all going to drop out and demand that they get their money back (I believe around $US 500).

They told me that they appreciated my good will and my level of tasting in English, but that they couldn't put up any more with Esteban, undoubtedly motivated by the need to show he was the boss, constantly interrupting me while I was talking, actually every time I dared change the original program or criticize the quality of the wines (remember that some of them had been purchased for three dollars, were perfectly unknown to us but surely  had destroyed the taste buds of more than one of those students, and no amount of florid talk on my part would save them from being savaged.)

Of course this unexpected little meeting really got under Cabezas' skin, saying that it was "attempted mutiny" in addition to refusing to change a single comma of the syllabus.  With this act and almost unintentionally, Esteban revealed what was going on:  the wineries not only were paying a high price for their wines to be tasted, but several regional governments, regulatory councils and other organizations in the wine trade had been conveniently shaken down so that they would be talked about in the USA, and that this "financial" protocol was the only one acceptable for the entire course.  They (presumably The Wine Academy of Spain and those entities) didn't care at all about anything else.

The climax of this whole ugly mess was in the presentation of wines from Murcia:  because the Murcia Region (NT: the regional government) and the DO Jumilla had paid, they were talked about, but Bullas and Yecla were studiously ignored, something that honestly I find difficult to explain in words because the Region (NT:  that was paying) includes them, but didn't include them (in this seminar).  I don't know if I make myself clear.

In Fenavin, 2011* (See two paragraphs below.)

Esteban Cabezas, whose zeal was repaid by Pancho still owing him more than 30.000 euros, recently spoke about his wish to put "at least 10,000 kilometers" between him and Pancho.

With a dose of humor and friendly words the flood waters receded the last two days of the seminar, although I couldn't avoid feeling embarrassed for having been seen in the eyes of the students as the incarnation (or at least a willing participant) in a scam.  Judging from their comments, some of my former students in that course and the following ones – I refused to continue but others took my place – have expressed that feeling in various forums, including Jim Budd's, while the real perpetrator of the scam hid in his mansion in Marbella, probably already preparing one of the following chapters in that unique, 'altruistic' crusade of his in the good name of Spanish wine internationally.  In this new episode, Pancho Campo gives the leading role to the character at the top of this story, our melancholy and well-meaning widower Dr. Jay Miller.

Back to Fenavin, this time the edition following the one which enabled me to meet Pancho Campo, i.e. the latest one, 2011. I was tasting with the people at the stand of the Ercavio with that fabulous and most entertaining winemaker, Gonzalo Rodríguez, when down the passageway our distinguished MW appeared, followed, a few steps behind, by the formidable countenance of Jay Miller. Pancho greeted me and talked to me about his forum project in Singapore and turned slightly to introduce me to an unsteady Jay, who recognized me and, opening his  mouth, deeply blackened from tasting, jokingly swore and re-swore that he had never tried on my coat that I had left at his home (in Maryland).  (Miller's volume is three times mine, I would like to see him try to put it on!).

I knew that for several months Pancho had been traveling across Spain because his progress had not only been followed on the web, but it had been followed by controversy as well.  Some were willing to argue that it is normal to ask tens of thousands of euros from regulatory boards and wineries to bring Jay to visit and that this kind of business is practically charity work.  (For many years, with me and without me, José Peñín has been crisscrossing Spain without ever charging anyone.)

For others, among whom I count myself, there is a stench around this whole thing. I know that in his latest visits to wineries Jay Miller has made the wineries sign a document to attest that he had not received any money from them, a belated attempt to try to cure the illness.  What is certain is that these economic demands did take place and were sent and signed by Pancho or one of his employees.

But perhaps what grates the most is the way Pancho has tried in many of these documents (published recently on Jim Budd's blog) to make excuses for the high price being charged...by using Miller as his human shield! I.e., by shouting to the four winds that the honorariums required by Jay were such and such (around € 20,000 per day), but apparently the good man would be willing to accept a somewhat lower rate.


In fact, in an e-mail sent from Italy by Campo to his commercial director and bounced in to the DO Vinos de Madrid, he said: "Private visits off the set agenda, as this would be, rarely take place, and not for a price below 40,000 euros. The fact that Jay has agreed to stay 2 days more, and for half the usual price, is a miracle and an opportunity that Madrid will find it difficult to have again."

I do not know to what degree Jay Miller's involvement is in Pancho Campo's scheme.  But in my opinion the most plausible hypothesis taken from the point of view of the nature of the characters involved (I tried to paint a picture of the personalities of both in my text) is that one, the cunning one, has led the other, the meek one, along these roads and in the way that the former so desired. 

I also think that all this reaffirms that Pancho Campo, regardless of the MW ribbons bestowed upon him, that now come after his name like an imprint or a second family name, knows that as a taster he will never attain the status of what (in a beautiful but not yet entirely Spanish word) we call a "prescriptor" or leading expert, like Peñín or Miller, and that his only road to fame depends on other more mundane skills, including those for which he has become famous lately, those that have just dumped so much suspicion on an industry which needs anything but that.

I wish someone would explain to Miller just what position Pancho has put him in (that of a consultant demanding 20,000 € per day), in documents written in Spanish. I'm sure that when Jay finds out, on the unemployment line, it will not to make him at all happy.  And perhaps our portly American taster even has friends at Interpol."

The Worst Taste* of Campo and Miller: Another Top Spanish Wine Publication, Andrés Proensa’s PlanetAVino on the Campo-Jay Miller-Robert M. Parker Jr.' The Wine Advocate Troika Controversy in an Article by Raquel Pardo

* * * * *
 The Worst Taste* of Campo and Miller
(*The worst thing Campo and Miller have had to swallow.)

Robert M. Parker, Jr., The Wine Advocate, and Pancho Campo, the Wine Academy of Spain.
(Not a Proensa PlanetAVino photo.)

Andrés Proensa is one of Spain's top wine journalists, many think the best of them all.  He is the author of the excellent Guía Proensa, an annual guide to Spanish wines that is a treasure trove of information and insights, especially to those who know the Spanish wine world and can read between the lines.  He also publishes PlanetAVino magazine and runs the Proensa wine website.

On Sunday, the Proensa website published the following story, El Pero Trago de Campo y Miller, (The Worst Taste of Campo and Miller) by PlanetAVino writer Raquel Pardo, yet another balanced account of the Pancho Campo-Jay Miller-Robert Parker troika controversy, this one coming from yet another of Spain's top wine writing stables. 

Jay Miller, of the Campo-Miller-Parker troika, doing "freelance" tasting in Navarra for 

The Wine Advocate, on a trip for which Pancho Campo's Wine Academy of Spain 

is reported to have charged €100,000, out of which Miller was purportedly paid €10,000. 

(Caption by GD; Not a Proensa PlanetAVino photo.)

Several bloggers published emails and documents that seem to show that the Spanish wine taster (Jay Miller) for Robert Parker did not respect the ethical standards of (Parker’s) The Wine Advocate.

The Wine Academy (of Spain), the company accompanying Miller company around Spain, denies all the facts that challenge their professional work. -- Proensa.com

Madrid, December 11, 2011 . - by Raquel Pardo, PlanetAVino (www.proensa.com); for those who read Spanish, also see Raquel Pardo's RaquelLiquida blog:

"We have been selfless (not doing it for a profit) in spite of what the blogs are saying and (up to) today we have not even accepted an invitation to dinner."  With these words, President of The Wine Academy, Pancho Campo MW, cited on Thursday December 2 (in reference) to what has become known on the Web as "Campogate," a controversy raised on the Internet stating that Campo and Jay Miller, in charge of Spanish wines to the U.S. magazine (newsletter), The Wine Advocate, could have charged money to visit, taste and rate Spanish wines, which expressly violates the internal rules of the publication. In those rules it is affirmed that employees of the publication, which is what Miller is, should write strictly about what's in the bottle, free from external pressures.

A couple of days after Jay Miller resigned (his position) as a (Wine Advocate) taster, Robert Parker, owner and founder of The Wine Advocate, caused a river of lines on the Internet where professional journalists on their blogs and other bloggers commented about what happened.  Miller has only issued a statement in which he says he has never charged for visiting wineries or wine tasting, and ensures that he is leaving the publication to undertake other projects and not due to criticism about his work in Spain in recent months.

Jumilla, the first (?) Scandal

The news leapt onto the scene through the blog entries of a Frenchman, Vincent Pousson, based in Spain, on Jacques Berthomeau’s blog, plus the posts of English journalist Jim Budd, and the were quickly spread as comments in forums and from entries from other bloggers like Tyler Coleman (Dr. Vino) and some less known in the industry.  Budd published several e-mails in October concerning a visit to Murcia of Pancho Campo MW, Jay Miller, where a sponored ' association of wines from Jumilla, ASEVIN, through its secretary, Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez, was requesting money from wineries a master class to pay for both a “master class” with a wine tasting and a few visits, at 100 to 200 euros for tasting (each) wine and 500 euros for participating in the master tasting class with one of them (Campo or Miller) and 1,000 euros for visiting a winery. The total two-day visit (25

and 26 November) of Miller and Campo therefore amounted to about 29,000 euros, according to the aforementioned emails.

In a statement issued last Saturday (Dec. 10, 2011) by The Wine Academy and signed by the MW (Pancho Campo), whose headline reads "TWA (The Wine Academy) categorically denies the charges against him (Pancho Campo) and against Jay Miller" stating that "in the contract signed by ASEVIN it is clearly stated that in no way could they (Campo and Miller) ask for money for the event, not for the wines to be tasted in the Master Ttasting Class nor for any possible visits Jay Miller might decide to do during his stay on this trip.

Before Jay Miller agreed to attend the event mentioned, ASEVIN sent an email trying to raise money from the wineries, against the rules clearly spelled out in the proposed agreement.

Indeed, on November 5, ASEVIN launched a statement admitting its responsibility for having sent an email money soliticing money from bodegas to cover the cost of the visit and retracted it, stating that "in no case (ASEVIN, The Wine Academy and The Wine Advocate) would proceed to collect any amount of payment from the wineries for a Jay Miller visit to their bodegas in the Murcia region in order to (for him) taste their wines. "

(Jim) Budd also published what is supposed to be a contract between the organization (ASEVIN) and The Wine Academy, although in the document seen in the copy (on Jim’s Loire blog) nowhere can be found the signature of Campo’s wife, Melissa Butler, the manager of the company (The Wine Academy; domiciled in Florida according to the document).

Madrid and the "pay for play" or "no pay, no play"

After new e-mails came to light relative to a similar visit from both (Campo and Miller) to Madrid, both proposed for the summer, where the commercial director of The Wine Academy, Adela Richer, specifies, in an email sent to the Regulatory Council of the DO Vinos de Madrid last June 3, a program proposed by Pancho Campo that would consist of visits to  three or four wineries, tasting and staging a press conference similar to the one held (earlier in the year in La Mancha) at the Fenavin wine fair and to put on a "tasting on wines that have U.S.  importers and that Jay (Miller) has not rated before (a indispensable requisite for being published [in The Wine Advocate]). "

In this same email exchange, Pancho Campo sent another e-mail from his smartphone (iPhone) to Richer and to the Regulatory Council of the DO Vinos de Madrid, in which it literally says that "private visits off the agenda, such as this, are done on rare occasions for a price not less than 40,000 euros. The fact that Jay has agreed to stay two days more for half the usual price is a miracle and an opportunity that will be difficult for Madrid to have again."


Finally, Miller's visit to Madrid did not take place because of a lack of participation of by the wineries. This is what sparked the doubts about whether Miller and Campo, without fees involved, do not go to certain wine regions to meet them and thus have Miller taste and evaluate los vines in order to publish his notes in the prized Wine Advocate. In the eyes of an industry source who preferred to maintain anonymity and claims to know first hand about these events, "in Spain, The Wine Advocate, the publication owned by (Robert) Parker and one of the those wine publications that most determines the prices of wines in the United States, is being corrupted by the influence of Pancho Campo over Jay Miller."

Again, in a statement of denials, The Wine Academy clarified that Jay Miller was always informed about the events in which in might possibly participate, and as to all the details related to the event, and added that Robert Parker, the American guru that can raise the sales (and prices) of the wines scored above 90 points in his publications, informed Campo’s company that The Wine Advocate had no problem having members of his team take part in "lectures, conferences, seminars tours and tastings."  (Campo) added that he had in his possession signed documents that specified that the wineries had never paid for visits from either guru (Campo or Miller), nor for wines tasted nor to participate in Master Classes.

Other areas, other documents

Again Budd's blog, aided by the Associated Press journalist Harold Heckle in Spain, published on Saturday images of a letter signed by the Chairman of the Board of the Designation of Origin Vinos de Madrid, Juan Bautista Orusco, which specifies that the 20,000 euros that were budgeted for the visit of Campo and Miller were for a Master Tasting led by Campo but with the American (Miller) as the "guest star," along with a lecture by the MW (Campo) on wine exports.

(Budd’s post) also clarifies, contradicting what Campo described in the email he sent to Madrid wines from his  smartphone, that The Wine Academy at all times made clear that  would be a event that was not connected to of the American publication (The Wine Advocate), and that wineries would not be charged for including their wines in the Campo tasting.

In the last section it  specifies that Miller would agree to taste and rate Madrid wines on a future visit, which had not happened (Miller no longer works for The Wine Advocate) and that this trip would be at no cost to the wineries that were part of the official Parker publication visits.

On Sunday, this same blog (Jim’s Loire) published photos of Jay Miller tasting a number of wines in Navarra, allegedly for The Wine Advocate.  However, in a Wine Academy statement about the visit to the region it said that "at all times it was made clear to the DO Navarra that this event was not an official trip for The Wine Advocate" and that if the American (Miller) was tasting or visiting wineries, (such visits) would be free and always under his (Miller’s) criteria.

The Spanish journalist Ramon Franco, in his blog, also said in one of his entries referring to this that the former director of the Instituto Catalán de la Viña y el Vino, Oriol Guevara, said that this institution, under the (auspices) of the Generalitat (Catalan Government) did not pay anything to have Miller and Campo for tasting wines in Catalonia, with the exception of glass rental.

Miller's resignation

On December 4, after that last visit to Spain, Miller communicated his resignation to The Wine Advocate and was quickly replaced by Neal Martin. Meanwhile, Robert Parker announced possible legal action against bloggers and journalists for defamation and there was the announcement by a team member of The Wine Advocate that months before in January Miller had given notice that he would leave, a fact that was possibly unknown to the agencies and wineries the guru (Miller) visited during these past months, and it is not known if The Wine Academay was aware of it (the fact that Miller was retiring).  Miller, to date, and apart from his statement of resignation, has not spoken again.

For the PlanetAVino director and owner of this website, Andrew Proensa, "this is a tangle of contradictions with two scenarios: the aggressive commercial posture of Pancho Campo and his Spanish organization and a reaction by a significant part of the international wine critics before what they consider to be the excessive power of the American critic. In both cases, the issue acquires the peculiar smell of a campaign and its (attendant) miseries.

On the one hand, the chronic (modus operandi) of The Wine Academy of Spain by Pancho Campo, who apparently has no qualms about the use, the inappropriate use or (as) a partner in crime, of Miller’s name as a lever to get contracts.  On the other hand, the anti-Parker offensive, with undoubtedly well founded aspects and others excessive almost to (the point of) caricature, seems to have gotten results and appears to have diminished the enormous influence of the Maryland lawyer in the world of wine. The Spanish uproar has all the earmarks of using Campo’s foibles as as ammunition to shoot at Parker.

And Spanish wine, with a good part of their institutions caught in a (bad) situation and trying to plug the breach anyway they can, looking dazed and uncomprehending--as you can see if you have the patience to follow the comments of amateurs, professionals, more than a few opportunists in blogs and chats. "

PlanetAVino No. 40 includes a Andrés Proensa’s article, "Miller and Campo, the charge of the 7th Cavalry."

Ryan Opaz, Catavino: "Pancho (Campo) has consistently brought the shadow of scandal, something that no innocent man has ever had to deal with as much as he has. Spain has put a lot of money in Pancho’s pocket, and what’s amazing is not Pancho’s ability to extract it, so much as Spain’s willingness to let it go!"

* * * * *

Hey, ho! Please let Pancho go! ~ Time for some wine drinking. - - Ryan & Gabriella Opaz's Catavino Blog

 

Some selected quotes from Ryan Opaz's column today, Dec. 8, 2012:

On Pancho Campo and WineFuture Rioja 2009: 

 "I have no love for Pancho Campo. Our relationship has been a mixed affair; of myself begrudgingly accepting an opportunity that I thought could lead to better exposure for my own brand. Wine Future 1 was great, and I thank Pancho for the opportunity to be there, and for being given a voice. It helped me immensely but that does not mean that I have to like the guy who organized it, just respect what he did. Nor do I need to love the event as a whole. Wine Future is stuck in the past. It claims to predict the future by inviting pillars of the industry that point out what is wrong with the present, while lamenting the past. Asia may be the future of wine consumption, but it is not wine’s future.

 In addition, despite great networking opportunities, I don’t think the event helped the industry as a whole. There weren’t many groundbreaking theories or thoughts beyond the ability to cram so many egos into such a small stage all at one time, myself included – an effort Pancho should be commended for. It made great photos and fodder for us all to riff on. But most importantly, Wine Future wasn’t good for Spain." 

 On the shadow of scandal surrounding Pancho Campo:

"It is true that Pancho’s Spanish Wine Academy has done a lot to spread the good word about Spanish wine, but at what cost?  Pancho has consistently brought the shadow of scandal, something that no innocent man has ever had to deal with as much as he has. Spain has put a lot of money in Pancho’s pocket, and what’s amazing is not Pancho’s ability to extract it, so much as Spain’s willingness to let it go!"

 

On Pancho Campo and the corruption of ethics of the Wine Advocate:

I do believe he corrupted the ethics of the Wine Advocate, a magazine that I have held a lot of respect for, and for this I think Pancho should get a firm wag of the finger, but he did nothing illegal. Between you and I, I think that the order of importance of things in Pancho’s life goes something like this: Pancho, Family, Money, Ferraris, Skiing, Jet Skiing and Wine. But that is not a crime. Wine pays the bills so the rest can be enjoyed.   

(GD: Between you and me, Ryan, I think you may be right.) 

 On Robert Parker and . . ."today your points at times corrupt the industry.

Oh and Robert, Mr. Parker, Bob. I really like you. You are the reason I am in wine. You made me fall in love and now I’m in it for life. You’ve taught me so much that I feel I need to return the favor by saying, WAKE UP. Criticism does not mean that the person criticizing you necessarily is wrong, or bad, or a blobber! It means they might have a point, so at least listen. Grow a thick skin and realize you are not better then the people who read your magazines, or more moral than the bloggers who hope to one day have a voice of their own. 

 Engage. I love what you did for the wine industry. You changed it, but today your points at times corrupt the industry. You are smart enough to see this, even though you claim that people give your points too much credit. It might be that you haven’t given them enough yourself.  Speak honestly about the trouble points have created in the wine industry. We are not going to get rid of them, they are part of the wine industry love them or not, but help us to work through our addiction to them. Teach us to use this force wisely. We don’t need a Ralph Nader of wine anymore, what we need is a wine lover who shares our passion and their knowledge. That should be you. You should help us to be better as an industry.

(GD: Though you have done marvelous things in your few years in being involved with wine, please realize that, until the last 20 years, those of us who were in it from back when called it "the wine trade," not "the wine industry.")

David Schildknecht of The Wine Advocate's Statement On The Resignation of TWA Spanish Wine Critic Jay Miller Raises More Questions Than it Answers

* * * * *

David Schildknect, The Wine Advocate.
Photo by Gerry Dawes©2008 / gerrydawes@aol.com

As you can see, David Schildknecht, with whom I have been acquainted for a number of years, gave me his permission to use the statements that he also sent to a few other bloggers.  Now that I have had time to study Schildknecht's points, here are my thoughts (posted after each of his points).  I emphasize that this is not an exhange, rather my answering Schildknecht contentions.

David Schildknecht to me (in red), my replies are in black bold:

David Schildknecht:  "Gerry, feel free to post on your site the following, which I had already sent to a few other folks - but I copy it (here)  just in case anybody else is interested in the latest salacious gossip /  prosaic updates re The Wine Advocate and/or wishes to say that they read it here first! (I realize that a story conjuring the scrambling of the Wine Advocate staff to address a precipitant departure by Jay would make better copy ... sorry, but it just isn't so.)"

Gerry Dawes:  First off, many thanks, David, for taking the trouble to give me answers and I am sorry if I gave the impression (in my answer to your first e-mail to me) that I thought you were not telling the truth.  I am very sure--several mutual friends vouch for your veracity and integrity--that you are telling me the truth based on the information that you have.  However, given that the statements as you know them are truthful, this raises some more serious questions, at least in my mind.

David Schildknecht: "When Bob Parker discussed with me in January the plan for Antonio Galloni to assume responsibility for covering the Cote d'Or and Chablis, he informed me that Jay (Miller) had decided to retire at the end of this year and asked me to mull over the inevitable need that would arise for someone new to cover the Pacific Northwest. On August 4, I formally accepted the latter assignment. Realizing that the conclusion would be drawn in the press that we had scrambled to react to circumstances on short notice, I wanted to let you know - at the risk of arousing new suspicions on your parts about my veracity! that this was not the case."

Gerry Dawes:  So Parker, Galloni, Miller and you all knew that he was going to retire at the end of this year, as early as January (and later you say Neil Martin knew by November 4th, perhaps earlier)?

Does that give anyone more than me pause for thought?  You are essentially saying that at least Parker, Miller, Galoni and you knew that Miller was going to retire at the end of the year and still Parker put Jay in Pancho Campo's hands to manage his visits to Spain this year?!  Then I guess a fair question is when did Pancho Campo know that Jay Miller was going to hang it up at the end of the year?

Let me posit a few scenarios here:

1) Neither Robert Parker nor Jay Miller let Pancho Campo know that he (Miller) was going to retire and let Campo go ahead and book events for which he charged high fees and paid Miller for delivering "catas magistrales," which by the reports of many eyewitnesses [attendees]) published accounts on-line were inept and uninformative on Miller's part.  (Several attendees were scandalized and disbelieving of performances, according to published on-line reports from both Navarra and Valencia.  One called his Valencia tasting performance “a joke.”  ).

2) Parker or Jay let Pancho Campo know that Miller was retiring and no one told Campo's potential clients, including wineries, promotional arms for Spanish wineries and regulatory councils, right up until just three days after his final visit.

3) Miller told Pancho and both decided to keep it quiet, knowing full well that the organizations and wineries in question thought that they were investing in positive publicity and access to Miller and The Wine Advocate and that would reflect long-term on their prospects for selling wines from some very depressed wine regions.  Mind you, in the opinion of many, the clients in question are getting what they deserve because they obviously thought they were "paying for play."  Some opinions on the internet boards concerning these visits thought the rates that Campo was charging were well worth it because of what a positive review from Miller could do for their regions and wineries in the U.S. and in China!!

4) Miller kept the news of his retirement quiet it so he could cash in with Campo before he retired? And Jay Miller knew he was getting some of the best paydays of his life as he was going out the door.

In retrospect, because of the frantic now-or-never approach Campo took with the Madrid D.O., including the offer of a half price discount if they would book Miller in right away, saying something like "another opportunity may never come again, certainly not until at least 2014," it appears that Campo probably knew that Jay was quitting after that trip, which is why he set up these questionable encounters in Valencia, Murcia and Malaga and attempted to do so in Madrid (the two of them finally did a seminar for "free" after the international internet controversy broke out.

And, now according to your testimony, we now know that Robert Parker knew since January that Jay Miller was retiring, yet he let him go ahead cashing in and let Campo solicit or attempt to solicit substantial payments from several denominaciones of origen in Spain under, dare I say, less than transparent pretenses.

David Schildknecht: “I realize too, that Bob's having written that "[a]fter several months of consideration, Big Jay ... has decided to return to wine consulting" might well be interpreted as referring to recent deliberations. Nevertheless, they were not at all recent.”

Gerry Dawes:  For that reason, they are all the more damning, because Robert Parker let this situation go on and let Jay Miller cash in one last time in Valencia (even with an ever-growing shitstorm swirling) knowing that Miller was retiring just three days later.  

Not only that, he issued a post on his website threatened to sue those spreading “a reckless and malicious disregard for the truth and clearly aimed at damaging Miller, Campo, and TWA.”  (This threat was copied and published on elmundvino.com and on Jim’s Loire by British journalist Jim Budd.)

David Schildknecht: “An e-mail record confirming the upshot of my January conversations with Bob does not exist until my August 4 acceptance of new responsibilities, in which I refer to those January conversations.”

Gerry Dawes: Though I believe you and others believe you, a judge in a court of law would not find that admissible as proof that those January conversations took place, but if you say that you knew that early, like I said, that is even more damning, in my opinion.

David Schildknecht: “In that August 4 communication, Bob officially asks me to declare my intentions about covering Oregon and Washington after "Jay['s] retiring the end of 2011 (not announced)" The first sentence in my reply reads "You mentioned this to me in January on the phone, so I am at least psychologically prepared!" Neal's assumption of Spanish coverage is not mentioned in that e-mail but is implicit in the exchange, as he was formally asked at this same time to take on that assignment. I am sure that Neal's records - if not from August, then from very soon thereafter - will confirm this.”

Gerry Dawes:  While again I believe what you are saying, your belief that Neil Martin (Jay Miller’s announced replacement) knew he was taking on the Spanish coverage is not a given, it is conjecture.  Again, if Martin did know this by Aug. 4, he too kept silent during the Campo-Miller-Murciagate shitstorm.  In any case, Campo and Miller were allowed to proceed and take money from the Valencia D.O. under what many might call shady pretenses.

I am sure that many inquiring minds will want to know that with Miller “retiring” under such a cloud, will Robert Parker and The Wine Advocate still publish Jay Miller’s tasting notes and ratings for these last trips in Spain that have drawn so much fire?  And, if those notes are not going to be published, will the Valencia, Málaga and Madrid D.O.s feel they have been deceived?

David Schildknecht: On November 4, Bob e-mailed me and Neal together to let us know on what day (December 5) he would be posting his bi-monthly run-down of the new issue's contents and simultaneously making the announcement about staff changes and our new assignments.

Gerry Dawes:  So, you both you and Neil Martin knew by November 4th and even though their was full-blown brouhaha going on on such blogs as those of Jim Budd in England and Dr. Vino and Mike Steinberger’s Wine Diarist in the U.S., both of you still kept silent and didn't raise concerns with Parker about Jay Miller and Pancho Campo as they went on to the D.O. Valencia on December 1, charging them 35,000 Euros. 

David, do you think that D.O. Valencia would have paid Pancho Campo’s Wine Academy of Spain 35,000 Euros unless he delivered Jay Miller of The Wine Advocate to taste and rate their wines and with the hope that he would work miracles for them?

And what kind of people would take a hefty payment from D.O. Valencia under such a cloud and knowing full well that Jay Miller was announcing his retirement a few days later?Some would say that such actions smack of the actions of snake oil salesmen of yesteryear. 

I am not the only one asking these questions.

As English wine writer Jim Budd commented of Tyler Colman’s Dr. Vino blog this morning, Dec. 6:  “The $64,000 (or rather euro) question is will Miller be writing up for the Wine Advocate his recent visits to a number of Spanish wine regions, in particular Murcia and Valencia who paid a total of 64,000€ for Miller to visit, assess and rate their wines.

If, as it appears, Miller's retirement was long planned and if these visits are not to be written up* in TWA have not the Murcia, Valencia, Madrid and Malaga D. O.s been seriously misled at best?”

__________________________________________________________________________

About Gerry Dawes 

Gerry Dawes was awarded Spain's prestigious Premio Nacional de Gastronomía (National Gastronomy Award) in 2003. He writes and speaks frequently on Spanish wine and gastronomy and leads gastronomy, wine and cultural tours to Spain. He was a finalist for the 2001 James Beard Foundation's Journalism Award for Best Magazine Writing on Wine, won The Cava Institute's First Prize for Journalism for his article on cava in 2004, was awarded the CineGourLand “Cinéfilos y Gourmets” (Cinephiles & Gourmets) prize in 2009 in Getxo (Vizcaya) and received the 2009 Association of Food Journalists Second Prize for Best Food Feature in a Magazine for his Food Arts article, a retrospective piece about Catalan star chef, Ferran Adrià. 

Dawes was awarded the Food Arts Silver Spoon Award in a profile written by José Andrés (The James Beard Foundation's Outstanding Chef in America 2011. 

". . .That we were the first to introduce American readers to Ferran Adrià in 1997 and have ever since continued to bring you a blow-by-blow narrative of Spain's riveting ferment is chiefly due to our Spanish correspondent, Gerry "Mr. Spain" Dawes, the messianic wine and food journalist raised in Southern Illinois and possessor of a self-accumulated doctorate in the Spanish table. Gerry once again brings us up to the very minute. . ." - - Michael & Ariane Batterberry, Editor-in-Chief/Publisher and Founding Editor/Publisher, Food Arts.

Pilot for a proposed reality television series on wine, gastronomy, culture and travel in Spain.
(Filmed in Valencia and Alicante provinces, La Comunidad Valenciana.)
 

Gerry Dawes can be reached at gerrydawes@aol.com.