Murciagate: Robert Parker's 'thorough investigation' misses the real target – the Spanish gatekeeper

 

 An opportunity for Pancho Campo to 'enrich' himself?

Recently a long-time subscriber wrote to The Wine Advocate asking about Jay Miller's integrity in the light of revelations in Spain. He received the following response: 

'Dear Mr. *** - 

I appreciate the concern, but we have thoroughly investigated all of these rumors, found them to be totally false, and retained an attorney to take whatever action is required against the bloggers who have initiated these malicious lies against Jay Miller.. all the best, RMP'

(sent from the email of the secretary of The Wine Advocate)

Yesterday I sent a number of questions (see below) and copies of emails that detail the organisation of the proposed trip to Robert Parker. I have had no response whatever – not even a note saying 'Sod off' or words to that effect. 

Questions I sent to Parker (23.11.2011)

A few questions if I may.

I understand that you say a ‘thorough investigation’ into ‘all these rumours’ over Jay Miller’s proposed visit to Murcia has been carried out and that this investigation ‘found them to be totally false’.

Who carried out the investigation and what was its remit?

Pancho Campo says that you asked him to organize all of Miller’s visits in Spain. Is this correct?

Did the investigation include looking at the level of charges levied by Pancho Campo MW and the Wine Academy for organizing Miller’s visits?

Did the investigation consider whether there is a connection between Campo’s commercial interests and the Spanish regions, wineries and people that Miller meets?

I understand that Miller will not be visiting Vinos de Madrid because they could not afford Campo’s fees? Is this at variance with your guidance to your reviewers?'

**

Unfortunately Parker's 'thorough investigation' appears to have failed to look at the real concern – Pancho Campo MW. I, for one, have never accused Jay Miller of accepting money for tasting wines or visiting Spanish wineries.

Instead the real issues were raised by Andres Arévalo on the El Mundo forum on Monday (21st November) with a translation here on Jim's Loire. They remain unanswered.

Pancho Campo MW has apparently been appointed to manage all of Miller's visits in Spain. Campo, who was convicted to a year's imprisonment in Dubai for fleecing his business partner, has now been put in a position to 'enrich' himself as Miller's gatekeeper at the expense of a struggling Spanish wine industry. Little wonder that resentment is building in Spain.....        

     

More moolah for Pancho?

Tasting notes

Despite his best efforts, Murciagate continues to swirl around Pancho Campo and The Wine Academy. Interesting to see that there are now some tough questions being asked in Spain as this comment from Andres Arevalo responding to claims by Pancho Campo MW on the El Mundo forum here shows:

Dear Pancho,

This statement is very surprising in your reply:

'Our collaboration is just so you can take advantage of their visits to Spain and to facilitate your work. Neither I nor The Wine Academy have no say in terms tasting wines and visiting wineries and we just blindly follow the guidelines established by Parker.'

1. Thanks to Jay Miller visits your business is bringing great benefits to 20,000 by organizing conferences in Madrid, 29,000 in Murcia, Navarra, Valencia .. etc.. I have no problem with you enriching yourself you, this is a free country, but do not your charges seem excessive given the battered economy of the wineries and regulatory bodies?

2. You can not say that the agenda does not affect you because in Madrid through its commercial director Adela, we all know Iberwine for many years contacted the DO Madrid. A lady by the way, very nice and excellent shopping. Jay Miller said he was going to Navarre, and passing through Madrid and could organize a Masterclass Tasting and some visits. The DO Madrid consultant to wineries and said there were no funds. Proof: This elmundo.es any reader can call and ask OJ Madrid. By the way on Monday can do so in person because there is a presentation of BD in the stadium Santiago Bernabeu from 12:30 to 20:00.

3. Can not say it does not influence the agenda, rolling the "ember" of his business visits to wineries with low scores, below 91 or 92 in Ribera or Rioja as everyone knows because he paid with sponsorships Wine Future. There are many other wineries in both regions with much higher scores that have been left with "fish face" by not receiving a visit from Jay Miller ... maybe next time. Facts: Valtravieso in Ribera or Rioja Baigorri are excellent wineries but no (published by them on their websites) have more of these points .. but if the group sponsor of Wine Araex Future Rioja and also in Hong Kong. Easily verifiable on their website. Domecq Bodegas O Azpilicueta or where their wines are in Campo Viejo and The Wine Advocate, but yes ... Campo Viejo was major sponsor of Future Wine Rioja. These are facts.

4. Campo de Borja was visiting. Why not Calatayud or Somontano or another 70-odd regions? It's because you are the person who hires OJ repeatedly to organize your tastings. Facts: You have said it's Ambassador of OJ. Borja. And nothing against this great region ... but do not think I can say that "has no voice in the wineries that we visit."

And there are many other examples in Catalonia and other parts of Spain.

What surprises us the people of the wine is not wine journalists investigating what is happening. The Madrid is clearly an example of "or pay, or Jay Miller is not."

Or not?

Regards,

Andres Arevalo

http://foros.elmundo.es/foros/viewtopic.php?t=69631

**

Perhaps given the now widening focus across all of the wine regions Spain it would be more accurate to call this whole controversy Jay Campogate – raising as it does the exact nature of the relationship between Pancho Campo MW, The Wine Academy and Jay Miller as The Wine Advocate's reviewer in Spain.

Campo has said on El Mundo that he was asked by Robert Parker to organise all of Jay Miller's visits in Spain. If this is correct did Robert Parker give Campo a blank cheque or did he set out strict criteria that would establish a clear point of difference between Campo's legitimate business interests and the requirements as independence as a reviewer for The Wine Advocate? 

23.11.2011 (8.15am) – to date no response from Campo, who is now in Jerez with Miller.

Robert's silence damages the Parker team

The email (4.10.11) from Asevin that sparked Murciagate

It is now nearly three weeks since the 4th October 2011 'tariff' email from Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez was published on Facebook (26th October 2011) and still Robert Parker remains silent. I'm not surprised that I have had no response whatever from either Parker or Jay Miller. However, I am surprised that Parker has not made any public response. 

Parker may have decided that as he contemplates approaching retirement that his reputation is secure and in any case the fuss is all on the unreliable blogosphere. Unfortunately what Parker forgets is that he is now at the head of team and that his continued silence unfairly and unjustly damages their reputations. People start to wonder whether the Jay Campo Spanish circus is replicated elsewhere as this post 'Journaliste ou publicitaire?' 10 novembre 2011 by Marc André Gagnon indicates:

‘Payer un journaliste dans le but de bénéficier de son influence, n'est-ce pas un pot-de-vin? Est-ce que Robert Parker et les autres membres de son équipe reçoivent aussi de l'argent des producteurs ou de leurs associations? Peut-on accorder du crédit aux notes données par des personnes qui acceptent de l'argent des vendeurs de vin?’

Although I think Gagnon is wrong in suggesting that Miller is charging the wineries of Murcia for his proposed visit, the questions are asked and hang in the air unanswered. Certainly the linking of a fee paying master class to a brief visit by Miller to the region is an uncomfortably cosy arrangement, if The Wine Advocate's ethics apply to Spain.    

Parker's team includes a number of distinguished and hard working reviewers who frankly deserve better from their boss. When the story broke Parker could easily have issued a statement saying that he was looking into the Murcian 'tariff' as he takes allegations casting doubt on the independence of his reviewers very seriously. 

Instead the only public comments published have been nominally in the name of Asevin but surely written by Pancho Campo MW and The Spanish Wine Academy. It would appear that not only has Robert Parker delegated the organisation of Jay Miller's Spanish trips to a PR and marketing company (Pancho Campo MW – Institute of Masters of Wine website: collaborates with Robert Parker and The Wine Advocate organizing their visits to Spain) but has also now given  Campo responsibility to handle PR for Team Parker.