Pancho Campo MW
I understand that Robert Parker has just posted the following statement on his website relating to my post
Campogate: No Pay – No Jay:
"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 uses the Spanish Wine Academy (Pancho Campo is their President) to assist in organization. We would never permit a winery to pay us for the priviledge 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."
My comments:
I have never accused Jay Miller of taking money for visits to wineries or for tasting wine to be assessed for The Wine Advocate. On the two occasions I sent questions to Robert Parker I stressed that I was not accusing Miller of taking money for winery visits or for tasting wines that would be assessed for publication in The Wine Advocate. I have received no acknowledgment from either Parker or The Wine Advocate.
The only possible evidence that Miller might take money for visits to wine regions comes from the email sent by Pancho Campo MW on 3rd June 2011 at 15.30:
'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.'
Yesterday morning I sent Miller a copy of Campo's email and invited him to comment on this 'miracle'. I hope he will do so.
Far from being 'a reckless and malicious disregard for the truth' (possibly defamatory but I'll let that go) the posts on the proposed visits to Murcia and to DO Vinos de Madrid have been carefully based upon emails. In the case of Murcia on emails sent in October 2011 by officials in the regional ministry of agriculture and by Juan Antonio Ruiz Jimenéz of Asevin. I sent copies of these emails to Parker – again with no response or acknowledgment.
On 1st November 2011 I received an email from Jimenéz informing me that the article that had appeared on Jacques Berthomeau's site was based on completely false information and conclusions. As the article was based on the email Jimenéz had sent on 4th October 2011 to a number of bodegas in Murcia, I asked Jimenéz to let me know as quickly as possible what was false in his email as I was anxious to correct an false information on Jim's Loire as rapidly as possible. To date I am still awaiting a reply.
Thinking it would be helpful for Parker to see the additional Murcian emails, I emailed them to him with a copy going to The Wine Advocate's secretary on 23rd November 2011. I trust he got them as I have received no reply or acknowledgment to date.
Parker writes: 'We found no substance or truth to any of the allegations.' Since my post were based on the emails sent by officials in Murcia during October this appears to suggest that the information in these emails was either false or they are fakes. Again if this can be shown to be the case I will make any necessary amendments and retractions as rapidly as possible. To date there has been no evidence produced to indicate that the information they contain is false or that they are fakes.
Yesterday's post on the abortive visit to DO Vinos de Madrid proposed for July 2011 is based on emails sent between The Wine Academy of Spain and Vinos de Madrid and Aprovin. Copies of these emails were sent to DO Vinos de Madrid. If it would assist Mr Parker and his lawyers I will be happy to provide them with the original emails (in Spanish). Please email me on budmac@btinternet.com Again if these emails can be shown to contain false information or are fakes, then I will make any necessary amendments and retractions as rapidly as possible.
However, on current information, I stand by my posts on Murcia and DO Vinos de Madrid.
b
