Pancho Campo MW and Chrand Management

Daniel Li (CavesMaître France), Robert Parker and Pancho Campo MW

Hong Kong November 2011

Mr Li and his CavesMaître appear to have been ditched

Robert Parker sans Li

Pancho Campo@WineFuture HK and his major sponsor: CavesMaître (the Chinese Castel) 

Today Harpers 'Wine & Spirit Trade Review' has published a 'news report' entitled Pancho Campo looks outside wine after ‘disgusting attacks'. The 'article' covers Campo's move away from wine and on the events company called Chrand Management (Corporate Incentives and Events Management, SL). 

Pancho Campo MW alleges in the article that 'disgusting attacks' on him and his close family have driven him away, at least in part, from wine. Campo has previously claimed that his children suffered attacks and harassment. If this is correct, then I would could condemn such behaviour as strongly as Campo does himself. 

If, however, Campo is widening 'disgusting attacks' to cover 'Campogate' and the way that he and The Wine Academy of Spain organised Jay Miller's Spanish visits for The Wine Advocate then I would reject this as spin. If Campo thought my various posts on Jim's Loire were 'disgusting' rather than fair comment, he could have carried out his threat to sue. Campo claimed on decanter.com 8th December 2011) 'that he would continue his legal action against Jim Budd'. 

If he is indeed continuing 'his legal action' Campo and his lawyers are being extraordinarily discreet as I have not to date received any communication from either Campo or his lawyers.

Following Jay Miller's retirement from the Wine Advocate, Campo has decided he needs to broaden his portfolio away from just wine and return to promoting the sorts of events that he used to promote in Dubai and before that in Spain.

According to Harpers 'Specialist lifestyle events company Chrand Management has bought the Wine Academy of Spain to help run a series of consumer events featuring gastronomy, sport, wine and culture.' Unfortunately Chrand Management's website makes no mention of when the company was founded nor who its directors are or nor whether it has had any existence independent of Pancho Campo MW and The Wine Academy of Spain. As far as I can see all its history and the events portrayed on the website relate to Campo. A Google search on Chrand Management brings up no past history. Chrand Management would appear to be a recently formed vehicle to rebrand Campo – Charade Management SL, perhaps? Certainly this would be a more memorable name.

Campo is certainly a director of Chrand and appears to still be Presidente of The Wine Academy:

Chrand Management shares the same address as The Wine Academy of Spain:El Rosario 2, Edificio VidaRed Planta Baja, Local 1 - 29620 Marbella – Málaga.

It is notable that under Chrand's 'the clients' section' – 'Our events have been sponsored by some of the most prestigious international brands' – there is no mention of Daniel Li and CavesMaître (The Chinese Castel), although Mr Li's CavesMaître was a major sponsor of WineFuture HK only last November. 

'The scope of activities will surprise you' tweet (20th March 2012) 

+ Chrand Management joined Facebook on 16th March (2012)  

Their scope may have surprised Roger Waters:

 

Doubtless Waters may have noticed that Campo is no longer claiming to have promoted a Pink Floyd concert in Dubai, a venue they never played. He might be surprised at the possibility that Chrand Management might have been responsible for the whole of Waters' 'In the Flesh Tour'  – 'one of the events we managed and promoted'. The 'In the Flesh Tour' involved at total of 105 concerts over 1999, 2000 and 2002. I suspect Campo meant that he promoted one of these concerts: on April 15th 2002 at the Golf & Yacht Club in Dubai. Although it is an achievement to have put on one of the these concerts even if it represents less than 1% of the events.

One of Chrand management's claimed successes is Vinoble: 'Vinoble 2010

The Wine Academy managed the 2011* edition of Vinoble, the world´s most important fair for sweet, dessert and fortified wines. It was held in Jerez, Spain in May 2010.' 

The bi-annual Vinoble was founded in 1998 and there were six editions before Campo and The Wine Academy took over the running of the 2010 edition. The 2012 edition has now been cancelled.  

I'm reminded of an old Who classic:

"Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss" (Won’t get fooled again)



* Now amended to 2010.

Pancho Campo: False claims regarding the Institute of Masters of Wine and the Wine Academy

Extract from front page of official programme for the 1st International Wine Symposium 

Extract from page 23 of the official programme of I Simposium Internacional del Vino: June 2004

The Wine Academy is the Institute of Masters of Wine representative in Spain  – untrue

Following on from today's earlier post about the false claims of an affiliation between CIE Marbella and Middlesex University in the UK, this post highlights further false claims, which were made in the official programme for the First International Wine Symposium held at Marbella – 4th and 5th June 2004. The Symposium was organised by Pancho Campo and Jancis Robinson MW was the keynote speaker.
        

In the programme for the First Symposium of Wine, which was held in June 2004 there is a claim in an article that The Wine Academy Marbella is both an official centre for training MW candidates and is the representative of the Institute in Spain. 

Relevant extract (page 23 of official programme): 

'Hay que destacar que en las instalaciones de The Wine Academy se impartirán los cursos y titulaciones del Wine & Spirit Education Trust de Londres, organización que es, además, el centro oficial para formarse de cara a obtener el prestigioso título de Master of Wine, ya que The Wine Academy ostenta la representación para España de esta institución.

Translation of the extract passage:

'We would like to highlight that courses and qualifications of the Wine & Spirit Education Trust of London will be imparted in the facilities of The Wine Academy, an organisation that in addition is the official centre for training in order to obtain the prestigious title of Master of Wine, as The Wine Academy holds the representation of this institution in Spain.' 

Comments on the claims by Siobhan Turner, executive director of the Institute of Masters of Wine:

'The Institute does not have any official training centres.  The study programme is self-directed, with residential seminars organised by the Institute in a number of different locations around the world.  We have not held any such in Spain.

The WSET Diploma is one of our preferred qualifications for entry onto the MW study programme, but, except for those who gain a Distinction, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient qualification in and of itself.

I should add that this was not the first nor the last time that someone involved with giving WSET courses implied a direct link onto the MW programme from it – it is a fairly common event.  We have managed to deal with all those of which we’ve been made aware to our satisfaction.

We do not have official representatives other than the Institute’s employees and Council members or those officially appointed into specific roles – e.g. head of the Education and Exam Board, head of Exam Panel, etc. We have no 'representative for the Institute' in Spain, nor any other country.  The Institute has an official organisation in North America and in Australia, but these are parts of the Institute itself, and not representatives.'

Looks like Campo, The Wine Academy Marbella – precursor of The Wine Academy of Spain, and CIE Marbella are again mistaken as they were with Middlesex University.   

Before posting I invited Pancho Campo MW to comment. However, as yet I have received no response from him. 

CavesMaître FRANCE: Questions to Ezequiel Franco

CavesMaître France: Robert Parker presenting his Magical 20

I had hoped to be able to post answers to my questions to Ezequil Franco of CavesMaître. Unfortunately, although he invited me send him questions and provide 'all the answers', I'm haven't as yet received a response. I hope it will soon be possible to post Franco's responses. 

These are the questions I sent him yesterday morning:   

Dear Ezequiel

Many thanks for the invitation to ask questions and to give me all the answers.

Questions on CavesMaître, France

The company

a) When was the company name CavesMaître registered?

b) Why does the name of the company include France? Is the company also registered in France or does the company have offices there?

c) You say:

'Our company is in latin words CAVESMAITRE and in Chinese is 卡斯特'

Although my Chinese is strictly zero, CavesMaître appears to translates as 酒窖大师, which to my untutored eye looks rather different from the above which does translate as Castel –卡斯特'.

Are you misinformed here or is there some explanation that I’m missing?

d) Did the company have any previous names? If so what were they and when were they registered?

e) Has CavesMaître under its current name or previous names ever had an association or worked with Castel Frères/Groupe Castel? 

f) What was the annual turnover of CavesMaître in 2010 and 2009? Either under the CavesMaître name or any previous names?

g) Could you give me details of the brands and companies whose wines CavesMaître import into China. 

h) Did the company or Daniel Li ever register ‘Rioja’ as a trade name in China?

i) What other trade names have been registered by CavesMaître or Daniel Li?

CavesMaître, WineFuture HongKong and Pancho Campo MW

a) When did you first meet Pancho Campo and when did Campo first meet Daniel Li?

b) Was Campo informed of this year’s court case that involved Castel Frères? If he was informed when was this?

c) If he wasn’t informed why was this?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks

Jim 

***

A Google search produces the following undated tweet from Pancho Campo MW. It would be interesting to know what Franco told Campo about CavesMaître France. 

1.     Twitter / Pancho Campo: Thanks to Caves Maitre and ...

twitter.com/MadwineTV/status/129595696662839298

Thanks to Caves Maitre and my buddy Ezequiel Franco I am learning SOOO much about China. Amazing country. #WFHK11.

Murcia: Anatomy of Pay for Access

The spark: first email (4th October 2011) posted by Vincent Pousson on Facebook followed by a post on Jacques Berthomeau's blog

(Obtaining and translating these emails would not have been possible without the assistance of Harold Heckle.)

‘Murcia – €30,000 just for a two and half hour conference and masterclass!?’

Series of emails sent within Murcia during October 2011: a month of getting ready for Jay Miller’s visit
(Due to length we have split this article into two – the actual emails can be seen here)

These emails expose the confabulation of ‘official’ and ‘free-lance’ that has been used by Pancho Campo MW, with Jay Miller as an apparently willing party, to give visits to regions like Murcia and Valencia a veneer of respectability.

They show a cash-strapped region trying to find an equitable way of spreading the charge of €30,000 being levied by Campo and the Wine Academy of Spain amongst its members.

They expose as threadbare the defence offered by Campo on 9th December 2011. Far from being just one email, as Campo claims, this is a series of emails exchanged between the regional government in Murcia, the three DOs (Bullas Jumilla and Yecla) and Asevin. It is very clear that the bodegas are being charged both for having their wines rated and assessed by Jay Miller for The Wine Advocate/erobertparker and for the opportunity to have their wines included in the masterclass as well as a possible visit to their bodega.

As this was an official Wine Advocate visit the expenses incurred during the visit to Murcia should have been covered by The Wine Advocate as Campo acknowledges in his December 5th statement:

‘Before TWAS began collaborating with The Wine Advocate, TWAS made clear to its staff that according to Robert Parker’s rules, wineries could not pay for expenses or fees for visiting them nor for Jay Miller tasting their wines on behanlf od (sic) The Wine Advocate. All the expenses were paid at all times by The Wine Advocate.’

The emails, which run from 4th October 2011 to the last week of October, show that the organization and the charging of bodegas for samples sent in for Jay Miller to taste and visits by Miller was discussed at a high level within Spain’s regional government. The email sent by Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez on 4th October 2011, which was published on Facebook 26th October), is the beginning of a pattern and not a one-off. Nor was he acting as a maverick as has been suggested. These emails are at variance with the explanation provided by Campo.

These seven emails relate to the organization during October of the visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW to Murcia (24th-26th November 2011). Some of these have already appeared on Jim’s Loire (29,000 € for a two and a half day visit to Murcia: 24th-26th November 2011: http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/29000-for-two-and-half-day-visit-to.html

Brief details of the emails – the full versions are on a separate post.

Email One: Tuesday 4 October 2011 6.38pm

From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez (secretary of Asevin – private company promoting the exportation of wines from the region)
To: some 40+ bodegas
This is the one posted on Facebook by Vincent Pousson: 26th October 2011 and sets out the now famous tariff.

Email Two: Wednesday 5 October 2011

From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez

To: some 40+ bodegas

This is an important email as it establishes that Miller’s visit to Murcia was an official Wine Advocate visit. Jiménez explains that only wines rated by Miller with 85 points or more will appear in the publication.

This directly contradicts Jiménez’s statement sent to me on 1st November 2011 – a statement that bears all the hallmarks of being composed by Campo.

‘the visit to Jumilla was not included in the official programme of The Wine Advocate, which will take place at the end of November. Therefore, ASEVIN asked TWA to make it possible for Jay Miller to visit Jumilla (Murcia) to offer his opinion on this region’s wines.’

Jiménez’s statement is here (http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/11/jay-miller-pancho-campo-wine-academy.html)

Jiménez does stress that Jay Miller SOLO cobra por la Cata Magistral that is to say Jay Miller only charges for the two and a half hour conference and masterclass

Email Three: Monday 10 October 2011

Message from Maria Teresa Torres (technical Manager
General Directorate of Agricultural Training and Agribusiness
Ministry of Agriculture and Water) announcing a meeting on Friday 14th October 2011 starting at 13.00 to discuss the proposed visit by Jay Miller to Murcia.

Email Four: Monday 10 October 2011 14.32

From: DO Jumilla

To: those invited to meeting called by Torres on 14th October 2011.

DO Jumilla forwards email from Maria Teresa Torres (Email Three) to various producers and others invited to the meeting called by Torres.

Email Five: Friday 14 October 5.35 pm

From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez

To: some 40+ bodegas

Sent after the end of the meeting called by Maria Teresa Torres for 13.00 Friday 14th.

The price of submitting samples has firmed up – €300 compared to €200-300. Price of visit to a bodega doubled from €1000 to €2000. We assume that this reflects decisions made at the Torres meeting.

Email Six: Monday 17 October 10.48

From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez

To: some 40+ bodegas

JAR Jiménez sends out draft programme for Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW’s visit 24th-26th November out to the bodegas.

Includes two sessions of tasting samples – 25th and 26th, five visits to bodegas plus conference and masterclass.

Email Seven: last week of October 2011*

From: Juan Antonio Ruiz Jiménez

To: ???

Subject: RE: VISITA DE JAY MILLER

Email sent to a participating bodega asking for money to be paid into bank account – details given. Payment was in advance and we understand that no money paid out by the bodegas for samples and/or a visit from Miller has so far been returned to them.

Pancho Campo MW’s comments on Asevin and the visit to Murcia.

From the statement issued by The Wine Academy of Spain 9^th December 2011:

‘8. ASEVIN

a. One of the wineries that provided one of the wines for the master class and tasting at FENAVIN also owns a property in Murcia.

b. In view of the success of the event managed by TWAS the winery in question requested from TWAS to organize something similar in Jumilla.

c. Again, our commercial department submitted a proposal, which was accepted by ASEVIN. ASEVIN is a non-profit association that gathers the wines professionals of Murcia.

d. In the contract* signed by ASEVIN it is clearly stated that they could not ask wineries to pay for the event, for wines to be tasted at the master class or for possible visits if Jay Miller decided to include a few winery visits during his trip.

e. Before Jay Miller had agreed to the proposed event and contracts were signed, ASEVIN sent out an email trying to raise the money from the wineries, contrary to the stipulations clearly detailed in the proposed agreement. At that point TWAS put the event on hold until the wineries were informed that they could not be asked for any kind of payment for possible visits and for submitting samples.’

* ‘Contract’ was signed on 11^th November 2011 long after this series of emails and well after the scandal broke. Signed by only one party – Asevin – with no indication where it was signed.

Our comments:

It is not clear who set the sample and visits tariff – was it The Wine Academy of Spain or the various wine bodies in Murcia? Our best guess remains that the Wine Academy of Spain set the overall price (€29,000-30,000) and Murcia then worked out how to most equitably cover the costs). However, we note that the price (€500) here in Murcia for putting forward a wine for the master class tasting was the same as that charged to bodegas in Valencia.

Miller was to spend part of the mornings of the 25th and 26th tasting samples for The Wine Advocate that had been submitted under the Wine Advocate criteria cited by Maria Teresa Torres in her email of 10th October. It is surely evident that bodegas were prepared to pay to send in samples and for visits on the understanding that Miller’s visit was official and that their wines would be assessed and rated for The Wine Advocate. One cannot imagine that they were prepared to pay €30,000 just for a two and half hour conference/masterclass.

It is also difficult to imagine the producers wanting to pay €30,000 for Campo’s informed views on the Chinese market in the light of having CavesMaître, who have grabbed Castel’s trademark in China, as a major sponsor of WineFuture Hong Kong.

We note that Campo does not indicate in his December 9th statement whether the visit to Murcia by Miller was ‘official’ or ‘free-lance’.

The crucial question is would this proposed visit by Jay Miller and Pancho Campo MW have gone ahead if Murcia had declined the offer of a conference and masterclass? A question of No pay No Jay.

Or would Campo have said “I quite understand that in these economic circumstances you can’t afford our fees, so no conference/masterclass. However, Jay Miller will be there tasting wines for The Wine Advocate and will also visit some wineries”?

Jay Miller: a second set of unanswered questions

Jay Miller in Navarra: a 'free-lance speaking engagement' 

or tasting, rating and assessing for The Wine Advocate?

Following his reported comments in The Baltimore Sun, I emailed a few questions to Jay Miller on 9th December. To date I have received no reply. On Sunday (11th December) I sent him the two photos featured here asking whether they showed a free-lance engagement or an official tasting for The Wine Advocate. Fearing that the first email might have gone astray I copied the second email to the secretary at The Wine Advocate. To date no response – no acknowledgement.

I sent some questions to Miller on 2nd November – again no response or acknowledgment. 

9^th December 2011

Dear Jay Miller

A few questions if I may please.

a) In the Baltimore Sun article of 7th December it is reported:

‘Miller confirmed Wednesday that Campo helped him arrange free-lance speaking engagements, events where he would receive between $8,000 to $15,000. At the events, often attended by several hundred people, he would talk about his favorite wines, and attendees could sample those varieties.’

Is this correct please?

b) In the same article Pancho Campo MW explained that:

‘Campo said in that exchange he wasn't arranging a visit by Miller to any wineries, but rather that he was negotiating fees for Miller to host a seminar. The speaking engagement — not Miller's first — had nothing to do with The Wine Advocate, and the governing body for the local wine region, not any wineries, paid for it.

"It was not an official Wine Advocate trip, it's a freelance," Campo said. "When he does appearances on his own, those have nothing to do with The Wine Advocate."’

Over the past six months or so you have visited a number of regions in Spain including Jerez, Malaga, Murcia, Navarra and Valencia.

Which of these were ‘free-lance’ visits and which were official Wine Advocate trips?

c) Murcia and Valencia

Were you paid for the master classes you gave in Murcia and Valencia. If so what was your fee please? Was this fee agreed with Campo or the DOs/Asevin?

Was the tasting of 80 wines you did in the DO Valencia offices on Tuesday 29^th November (09.00-13.00) for the Wine Advocate or was it free-lance?

d) Reports on your visits

The secretary of The Wine Advocate has confirmed that you will be writing up reports on your recent visits. These will appear on the erobertparker site but depending upon space may or may not appear in The Wine Advocate.

Were the DOs of Murcia and Valencia aware of this at the time of your visits in late November?

I would be happy to post unedited any further comments you would like to make on Jim’s Loire, subject to the comments not being defamatory or libelous.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Jim Budd 

15th December 2011
Jay Miller has responded to Antonio Casado's article in El Mundo del Vino here. The English version is on Wine Business International here.

  

Pancho Campo MW: Statement from Robert Parker: 12.12.2011

Pancho Campo MW, Jay Miller and staff of The Wine Academy of Spain 

The following statement has been posted by Robert Parker on his bulletin board today:

'We have taken the accusations very seriously since this story broke. Below is a statement from eRP.com's lawyer Steve Haas,esq. about our investigation. When the final report is in, we intend to be totally transparent and publish it fully on this Board. Our lawyers are interviewing Pancho Camp today, and all relevant contracts and emails have been translated into English and reviewed.

I remain appalled at the lynch mob rush to judgment by the blogging community, but there have been several very well-balanced blog accounts devoid of the loathing and clownish tabloid-like comments. I refer to Tom Wark's excellent blog Fermentation (http://fermentation.typepad.com) and Steve Heimoff's blog accounts (http://steveheimoff.com). By the way, Jay is still working for TWA until January 1, because we believe he has done nothing to compromise the independence of our reviews, and based on the information we have already acquired, Jay clearly and irrefutably has taken no money for a wine review or winery visit, but I will await the lawyer's final report. Moreover, his retirement has been in the works since January of 2011, as David indicated. Obviously I knew for two months, as did Jay and the Wine Advocate staff, that the announcement was scheduled for December 5, and we had no reason to postpone it.'

The following is from Steve Haas, Esq:

'In light of allegations and innuendos posted by various internet blogs concerning visits made to Murcia, Spain by Jay Miller, an independent contractor who has conducted tastings on behalf of The Wine Advocate for more than 5 years in addition to his own wine related endeavors, and the participation by The Spanish Wine Academy in such visits, The Wine Advocate has engaged the law firm of Cozen O’Connor to conduct an investigation to determine whether our strict policy of independence in the review and tasting of wines for publication in The Wine Advocate or posting on www.eRobertparker.com was compromised by any conduct of The Wine Advocate or any other party associated with tastings in that region. Rather than reaching premature conclusions and making statements based upon snippets of emails and an excerpts of documents without the benefit of all available facts, we have placed no limitation on Cozen O’Connor’s efforts to seek information from whatever sources whom they identify as appropriate for a thorough investigation. This undertaking is merely a continuation of our efforts to guard our independence and integrity with vigilance for the benefit of our readers and subscribers.

We would also reiterate that Jay Miller’s decision to step down from his activities on behalf of The Wine Advocate is the result of long standing discussions between The Wine Advocate and Mr. Miller concerning Mr. Miller’s desire for sometime to pursue his own endeavors. Despite the dogged efforts of others, without any substantiation, to try to connect the timing of the announcement of Mr. Miller’s departure, which had been in the works for several months, to the recent allegations being perpetrated by these same critics, his departure has absolutely nothing to do with these allegations. We thank Jay for his contribution and dedication to The Wine Advocate and continue to wish him good luck in his future endeavors.'

Parker's statement clarifies that Jay Miller will remain with The Wine Advocate until 1st January 2012. 

Link to the law firm: Cozen O’Connor 


Our Comment

Harold Heckle and I welcome the statements of Robert Parker and Steve Haas, eRP.com's lawyer. We are pleased to see that a thorough investigation by the law firm Cozen O’Connor is now underway. However, we are concerned that Steve Haas appears to have limited this investigation to the visit to Murcia.

Although an investigation into the arrangements for the visit to Murcia (24^th-26^th November) can certainly be thorough, its terms of reference appear to be too limited in scope. All of Jay Miller’s Spanish visits since Pancho Campo MW was entrusted with their organization in 2009 should be investigated.

This investigation should cover to what extent the visits before Fenavin in May 2011 were to regions and bodegas in which Campo and The Wine Academy of Spain had a commercial interest. Post-Fenavin 2011 the investigation should consider whether the ‘hybrid’ nature (a mix of a paid free-lance speaking engagement with an official visit to review the wines for The Wine Advocate/www.eRobertparker.com) for the visits to Navarra, Murcia and Valencia as well as the proposed visit to DO Vinos de Madrid breached ‘our strict policy of independence in the review and tasting of wines for publication in The Wine Advocate or posting on www.eRobertparker.com’ .

#Campogate: the Asevin 'contract' - another spoof document

Page 1 of the Asevin 'contract': 11.11.2011

Page 4 of the Asevin 'contract' – only one signature

Pancho Campo and his Wine Academy of Spain* toiled all week to produce a statement. On Monday 5th December there was an announcement on Facebook that there would be a statement within 48 hours. Despite all the fanfare and grandstanding nothing appeared until around midday on Saturday 10th with the publication of a lengthy piece of self-serving bluster by the Dubai fugitive. 

Campo has chosen to to support his threadbare case with some spoof documents. The DO Vinos de Madrid document is the first example – see here. Then there is the so called Asevin 'contract', which like the Madrid paper is not a legal document at all. Page 4 above shows just one signature – Juan Antonio Ruiz Jimenéz – with no indication of where this 'contract' was signed. The space for Melissa Butler (Mrs Campo) remains empty as does Page 5. Did the normally vociferously supportive, Melissa, decide that there was no way she could bring herself to sign such tosh? Amazing that some people in Spain once thought they were afraid of Campo!

Page 2 of the spoof  Asevin 'contract'

 Page 3 of the Asevin 'contract'

The Asevin 'contract' another missing Melissa Butler signature on Page Five

Pancho Campo MW and The Wine Academy of Spain have released their long awaited statement here.           

* The Wine Academy LLC is registered at Watergate One, 1111 Gulfstream, Sarasota, Florida, USA.    

Campogate: 'Not an official Wine Advocate trip, it's a freelance' Campo claims

'

Pancho Campo MW: 'Collaborates with Robert Parker and The Wine Advocate organizing their visits to Spain.' 

(from Campo's biography on The Institute of Masters of Wine website)

Pancho Campo MW has defended his actions in The Baltimore Sun: 

'Campo said in that exchange (the Madrid emails) he wasn't arranging a visit by Miller to any wineries, but rather that he was negotiating fees for Miller to host a seminar. The speaking engagement — not Miller's first — had nothing to do with The Wine Advocate, and the governing body for the local wine region, not any wineries, paid for it.

"It was not an official Wine Advocate trip, it's a freelance," Campo said. "When he does appearances on his own, those have nothing to do with The Wine Advocate."

See article here: Wine critic's representative defends deals

If all of these trips – Madrid, Murcia, Navarra, Valencia were freelance when did Miller have time to do his day job – reviewing Spanish wine for The Wine Advocate and erobert?  

Campos claims are contradicted by Jay Miller, The Wine Advocate and emails.

Jay Miller: 'Miller says he did go to the wineries in question and plans to write about them.' The Baltimore Sun 6th December 2011.* 

The Wine Advocate: email received 6th December 2011 13.51 (GMT)

Dear Mr. Budd,

Yes, Jay will be writing reports on the wines he recently tasted in Spain. However, depending on timing and space limitations in the paper copy, those reports may only appear on the eRobertParker.com web site.

Sincerely, Joan Passman, Secretary, The Wine Advocate

Emails from regional organisers, The Wine Academy of Spain and Pancho Campo MW:

All make it clear that during Jay Miller's proposed visits to Madrid, Murcia and Valencia he will be tasting, assessing and rating wines following the criteria dictated by Robert Parker and The Wine Advocate. The email sent by Pamela Beltrán (2.11.2011) 14.05 of DO Valencia is particularly clear:

'As reported, we can confirm Jay Miller's visit to Valencia, which will take place on the 28, 29 and 30 of November. During his three-day he will accompanied by Pancho Campo (president of The Wine Academy, the company currently responsible for organizing and coordinating the visit). Miller is planning a wine tasting of each of the three D.O.s of Region for The Wine Advocate, the magazine run by Robert Parker. The details of this tasting are specified below.'

and: 

'Tuesday, November 29 - VALENCIA

    · 09.00 - 13.00 - Tasting of 80 wines from DOP Valencia for the magazine The Wine Advocate to be held at the D.O.'s offices).'

Read the rest here.

I have not suggested that the wineries paid Campo directly instead as he says the money was either paid by the DOs or through organisations like Asevin. Why would DOs, especially in these cash-strapped times, pay The Wine Academy €29,000 (Murcia) Navarra (€100,000), €35,000 (Valencia) or €20,000 proposed to Madrid solely for a 'speaking engagement' running for around two hours?      

**

* However, Miller is also quoted in Jill Rosen's article:

'Miller confirmed Wednesday that Campo helped him arrange free-lance speaking engagements, events where he would receive between $8,000 to $15,000. At the events, often attended by several hundred people, he would talk about his favorite wines, and attendees could sample those varieties.'

If Jay Miller includes the trip to Valencia 28th-30th November as an example, this presumably means that all of Monday (28th), Tuesday (29th) and Wednesday up to 18.30 when the lecture and masterclass started was an official Wine Advocate visit. It became a 'freelance' speaking engagement for the duration (18.30-21.00) of the 'Lecture and MasterClass'.