Antonio Galloni answers questions about for profit events!

[Daniel Posner]

http://winediarist.com/antonio-gallo...vocate-ethics/

[vinopolis]

Well, I don't think he answered much. But my greater belief is that he should not answer much.
These events look splendid to me; they seem to offer added value to both the tasters and purveyors.
Why would we think that a winery responding to Antonio's invitation had bought his soul for a case of wine?

[Daniel Posner]

Dan

I guess the flipside of that question is, what about the winery that turns down the invite, or the one that is not invited at all?

[vinopolis]

Dan

I guess the flipside of that question is, what about the winery that turns down the invite, or the one that is not invited at all?

Sure, that is the flipside. But the world is complex. Either he can handle it, or he cannot.
50% of our entire economic output is re-distributed under massive conflicts of interest. And we need to worry about Antonio?

[Jack Bulkin]

I get the feel that he can handle it. There are some guys willing to talk the talk and walk the walk. Others just waddle. (Miller)

[vinopolis]

wallow

[Shaun Crowley]

I get the feel that he can handle it. There are some guys willing to talk the talk and walk the walk. Others just waddle. (Miller)

I agree 100% with you, Jack. I think there is an absolute awareness of what stands before him.

[Daniel Posner]

I think Antonio is a man of integrity and unlike other WA critics, I take what he says as real.

Nevertheless, these tastings for profit are in clear violation of erobertparker code of ethical standards.

The code needs to be rewritten, as I have said before.

This article by this source seems to imply that I just took off on some trips and violated Parker's wishes and got some cool junkets.

Rubbish. For the record, and for the billionth time, I had advance approval (and in writing) from Parker for the trips I have taken as sponsored by various government organizations and trade organizations. It was deemed by both of us necessary to get the work done in a cost effective fashion to the Wine Advocate. Note that it wasn't my money being saved. I took sponsored business trips necessary to get work done in a comprehensive fashion so that I could provide subscribers here with more useful information. I make no apologies for it whatsoever, I'd be happy to do it again as work is now suffering, and I don't see why it is any worse or different than this Barolo Fest, as a matter of fact. In any event, it has nothing to do with anything else that occurred or any actions by anyone else, now or in the past.-Mark Squires

[Shaun Crowley]

I think Antonio is a man of integrity and unlike other WA critics, I take what he says as real.

Nevertheless, these tastings for profit are in clear violation of erobertparker code of ethical standards.

The code needs to be rewritten, as I have said before.

Totally agreed.

[Bill Klapp]

I say let us go back to the ethical benchmark that Parker started with, in reaction to the Brit critics, which is: when you visit a winery, do you leave the trunk of your rental car open so that the producer can put a case or two of wine in it, or do you leave the trunk locked?

[Jack Bulkin]

I doubt that Antonio will push this issue with Parker although Dan you are correct. The ethics portrayed in WA but long ignored by Parker and his band of gypsies must be changed to reflect reality.

[Daniel Posner]

Shaun and Jack

One of the issues I do take with Antonio, in this matter, is that he does not see how it is a clear violation.

Conflicts of interest cost people trust and integrity...just look at Jay Miller.

[Jack Bulkin]

I suspect he sees the appearance of impropriety Dan. He just refuses to acknowledge that he will allow a conflict to alter his judgment. Only time will tell if he is right. You are young enough that if he is wrong, your business and cellar may be impacted. Me, I ain't buying much anymore. Too many other issues in my future to deal with than buying much more overpriced grape juice.

[vinopolis]

Look to root causes gentlemen. There is conflict of interest at the core of Parkerland. That is the different ownerships of the pieces. They will never deal with much of anything consistently until they sort that out. As far as I know Antonio is the first and only person among them with a business background; at least among the visible personalities. And he appears to have businesslike objectives and a businesslike approach to attaining objectives. Parker may have businesslike objectives but does not have a remotely businesslike approach. The rest of the visibles do not have businesslike objectives. If Antonio does not get totally bogged down in sniffing tank samples and schmoozing bloggers, he just might sort this out. If/when he does, Shanken will wake up with a headache.

[Dale Williams]

I think the idea that Antonio "can handle it" (or when Miller said his friendship with importers wouldn't affect ratings, or when Parker has made similar comments) ignores some basic facts of human psychology. We all THINK we are making judgements in a totally rational manner, but numerous tests have shown how much we are subconsciously influenced by self-interest or external factors that seem trivial to us, but actually can sway our judgement.

A reviewer might honestly think that he was totally fine that Cantina X refused his invite to an event that made him money, but that refusal might rankle on an unconscious level, and a 95 becomes a 94. A reviewer might think a winemaker totally whiffed a wine in an otherwise strong vintage, but the fact that winemaker brings $10K of goods to his events might (in a totally unconscious process) let the reviewer convince himself that it's just an awkward stage, and that 86 is really a "90, but backward and needs time."

Wine appreciartion is subjective. I believe that, so I'm not too worried about Antonio's scores (besides, I haven't subscribed to WA in 7 or 8 years). The problem is (a) as noted the WA "code" seems to contradict this venture (and Parker has spent a lot of time taking potshots at others' ethics) and (b) WA has promoted the idea of "objectivity" in wine scores. If one takes the idea of points are being an actual scale out of the picture, these subconscious influences are less likely to be of concern.

[Ken_Birman]

Well, the question will certainly arise. He'll taste an off year at Petrus, or Latour, or Giacosa. And then will remember the deal for a 25 year vertical co-hosted by Giacosa himself, who might just take offense and cancel the whole event. And then we'll see, I suppose.

[Daniel Posner]

"Either The Wine Advocate is free from commercial/trade interests or it is not. Pick one and stick to it."-David Bueker, as posted on the erp.com website

Of course, it comes after Antonio Galloni said some many interesting comments.

[Daniel Posner]

As people are asking that the ethics page be rewritten (me, for 4 years now), let's throw in page 1 of the Wine Advocate, as well.

The Wine Advocate is becoming a big joke in the ethics world.

"Follow the rules, whenever possible, and if it is not possible, no matter, we will just claim that we did" should be on page 1

[Peter Tryba]

Hans-Georg Gadamer.
Bias is inescapable.

[Daniel Posner]

Peter

Unfortunately, Antonio has taken a page from Bob, and refuted science today.

[Evan Dawson]

I'm confused as to why Parker's past grandstanding even has to be relevant here. I mean, I understand the point, but independent of Parker, consider:

Galloni is hosting dinners on which he is making a profit, and the quality of the wines at the dinner -- the wines that he reviews! -- directly affects his ability to attract people to pay for the dinner.

There's a whole lot to like about Galloni, and I trust people who have good things to say. But in terms of journalistic standards, there's not a serious debate about this, right? Who cares what Parker said? This would be enough for me to cancel a subscription. But maybe, as a journalist myself, I missed the memo about changing standards. Sigh.

One other point: Galloni promises this won't affect his ability to remain objective. That's nice. I don't think he's lying or obfuscating. But we're talking about human beings here. There's a reason these standards (used to) exist: To make sure we're not put in the position to be tested.

[Evan Dawson]

One other point: I tend to think this is an honest mistake, not the work of a some nefarious rule thwarter. The notion of a huge Barolo fete with the producers on-hand must have seemed like a dream. But the easy solution is to not make a profit. Get the event together. Bring the wines. Just don't line your pockets. I think Galloni will see that mistake and change course; he'll still hold the events but he won't make money.

And no, I don't care that he claims the profit "wasn't that much." We still don't know how much, and it won't matter. It's profit.

[Jack Bulkin]

I am on the record of giving Antonio kudos for at least confronting Mike Steinberger and passionately posting that he has values and ethics.
Lorem Sonkin comes on EBOB and calls out those that have an agenda and are troublemakers that take pot shots. Were you referring to me Loren? There were certainly pot shots taken at me but I could not have been more neutral. I even attempted to calm down Mark Squires whom I despise . He has treated me like a dead dog with fleas, deleted and censored my posts for years, but I did not in any way take a pot shot at him or anyone else.
I don't need to cause anymore dust over there since I am obviously being viewed for expulsion for this.
Loren you are now a California Winemaker didn't your comment take a pot shot at me? Aren't you now a potential conflict at least in appearance for supporting Antonio and calling out all those that have brought Steinberger's comments to light since he may one day review your wines?
I like Eric Levine but it couldn't be more clear to me that he is also courting Antonio's favor in hopes of future progress for CT on EBOB.
I have not called out Antonio for a conflict but there clearly at least is the appearance of a conflict in his paid for profit tasting. It is clearly in violation of Robert Parker's strict ethical standards that likely have at least been abused by Jay Miller if not Robert Parker for years. Think Sierra Carche, 97 Harlan et. al. , allowing a volunteer moderator to open a web site as a " Wine Insider".
This entire episode sucks. It reveals everything about wine rating, wine insiders and the whores in this business that I for one find disgusting. I think I am going to open a fucking beer.

[Daniel Posner]

One other point: I tend to think this is an honest mistake, not the work of a some nefarious rule thwarter. The notion of a huge Barolo fete with the producers on-hand must have seemed like a dream. But the easy solution is to not make a profit. Get the event together. Bring the wines. Just don't line your pockets. I think Galloni will see that mistake and change course; he'll still hold the events but he won't make money.

And no, I don't care that he claims the profit "wasn't that much." We still don't know how much, and it won't matter. It's profit.

Evan
I am not so sure. Shortly after announcing his new "job" at the Wine Advocate, and leaving his full time gig, he announced Barolo Fest and Masseto dinner.

Something tells me that he is counting on events such as these to supplement his income, and to offset his lost income from no longer woking in the "real" world.

I see no reason that he did not profit $40-50K here and he will probably make $900 per person from Masseto...tough income to give up. Even if the Barolo fest took up a lot of time, is the Masseto dinner taking up much? Axel Heinz brings the wine. EMP cooks the food. Antonio makes some brochures to hand out?

If he has 25 attendees, that is a 20k night. And all he did was ask Axel to come to NY and pour every Masseto ever produced. If I asked Axel to pour every vintage for free, would he do it for me? No, of course not. But he will do it for a Wine Advocate sponsored event.

The more I see and read about this, the sicker I become by it all.

If Antonio wants to do this stuff, then the wine drinking public needs to know the truth, or at least the WA subscribers.

[Daniel Posner]

Jack, well said. This is not what I bargained for when I got in the wine business.

Everyone has an agenda.

Remember Larry Schaffer's scores from Parker? If youa re not sucking up, you put yourself at risk, and clearly some people fear being an enemy of Antonio's, at this young stage of his new life.