Competitions are no laughing matter.

by dionysus on December 1, 2011

What do those who award themselves medals, or winners of their own national lottery and the Top 100 SA Wines: Wine List Challenge have in common? They all declared themselves winners in their own “competitions”. Top 100 SA Wines: Wine List Challenge has just voted its very own wine list as one of the best in South Africa. So if it is good for them it is good for us. Not quite.

The murky and shady world that is South Africa wine has seen it fair share of controversy over the years. Nothing like a bit of scandal to drum up publicity. Enter one Robin von Holdt of Rodwell House in St James. Earlier this year he launched the Top 100 SA Wines Competition to great fanfare and controversy. And that bring us to his latest business, money spinning adventure, wine related competition the Top 100 SA Wines: Wine List Challenge. A competition to find South Africa’s finest wine lists. Only problem is Robin’s very own guest house, Rodwell House, was voted as having one of the best wine lists in South Africa. Nothing like patting yourself on the back old chap. Remember those arb competition rules printed in such small type you couldn’t read them anyway: no direct employees of company X or their family members, nobody within a nuclear zone of company x may enter competition Y. Well seems Robin never read those rules either, as it they don’t apply to himself or his competition. I wonder if at the awards ceremony he will be handing over an award to…himself.

As with most competitions the judges should be independent of who they judge. The judges were judging Rodwell House , Rodwell House is owned by Robin, he pays their wage and therefore there is a clear link between the judges and Rodwell House. Whether this effected the judges or not we will never know, but to dispel any doubt Rodwell House should never have entered their ”own” competition. When questioned if the results were audited and verified, like they do in those silly beauty pageants, Robin replied that GH Willis & Co and Vivid Accounting were the paid for Auditors for the event. A quick Google of GH Willis & Co threw up a blank and when contacted Vivid Accounting confirmed they are bookkeepers and not auditors… As entries for this event are done purely via an entry form I wondered if any of the entrants had actually been visited. Robin’s answer was that 20 restaurants had been visited. Yet when I did a bit of homework and made a few calls it seems I couldn’t find one entrant that had been visited by a representative of the Top 100 SA Wines: Wine List Challenge. I am sure there is a fairly good explanation for all of this and that Robin would be able to provide a detailed list of venues visited, dates, times etc. The cost to enter the event and for making the final list was about R1500, I assume Rodwell House also paid this entry fee like all other entrants and that Robin has proof of this. To make white wine even murkier the judging took place at Rodwell House… nothing like an unfair advantage when playing host.

This is wrong on so many levels. Yet Robin via Twitter seems to think nothing of the fact of this major conflict of interest. Reality is that this is a very small and fairly insignificant event on the SA wine calendar, so I am not sure how seriously consumers will take the final results. What really concerns me and has my alarm bells ringing is the Top 100 SA Wines cavalier approach to ethics and competition standards. If this is the way they go about their business, then serious questions need to be asked about The Top 100 SA Wines Competition. This is the big mamma competition held earlier this year to unearth South Africa’s finest 100 Wines. The monies involved are huge, certainly hundreds of thousands of Rands are spent on books, entry fees etc. The stakes for producers are enormous. Competitions of any kind need to be managed and meet the highest professional standards.

Last week I had the honor of judging at the most irreverent wine awards ever: THE SA BOX WINE AWARDS. This is all about fun, having a laugh, enjoying wine and pokes fun at the so called snobbery and seriousness of wine. In my humble opinion the SA Box Wine Awards has more credibility than the Top 100 SA Wines: Wine List Challenge.

15 comments

What saddens me is that the judges – Higgo Jacobs, Mia Martensson, Kent Scheermeyer, Jenny Ratcliffe-Wright and Chairman, Jorg Pfutzner for the quality awards, and Dax Villanueva, Harry Haddon – are reputable and decent people (I don’t know Maryna Strachan who was also a value award judge). How much did von Holdt pay them to buy their complicancy into this charade?

by Angela Lloyd on December 2, 2011 at 7:16 am. Reply #

My ‘compliance’ is not for sale, Angela, and neither are those of any of the other judges, that you refer to as reputable…
Top 100 SA Wines paid us an industry related fee, for our contributions to what we believe to be a constructive necessity in evaluation of wine offerings in SA restaurants.
I wonder if you (and Mr Dionysus?) have put much effort into studying our very comprehensive and, more importantly, objective judging protocol (as compiled by the judges), before indulging in criticism? The top scoring lists and restaurants do not need subjective influence to recognise their quality.

by Higgo Jacobs on December 2, 2011 at 2:27 pm. Reply #

I think that we have reached a point in wine journalism that there is no return to reality.

It is fantastic how little fact is research before jumping in to the wrong wine barrel in South Africa.

You more negative the journalist can be, the better they think it is.

This is not how we sell South Africa, since this is based on a bigger picture outside South Africa.

Our biggest money making today is tourism and wine, restaurants and hotels.

These partners all need help with great feedback, positive review in this harsh climate how they can up their business and find more clients.

This was Top 100 Wine List challenge first priority, to enhance and uplift the unique selling point for restaurants and hotels.

Advice to whom it may concern:

First advice would be to look up the website for Top 100 Wine Challenge criteria.

Second, call us if there is something that is not transparent enough and we can explain.

Thirdly, why not starting to investigate more of how many bad and bought wine lists are out there that are ripping clients off instead of wasting time on something that actually is helping the industry?

None of the judges would ever put his or hers name to this if one could not stand behind it.

The winning wine lists all have been on the top scoring of Diners Club wine list awards for the last 6 years, do not think they need any pimping to shine!

Warm regards

Mia Martensson

by Mia Martensson on December 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm. Reply #

I did indeed read through the exhaustive judging protocol and there are many positive introductions as to what a good wine list should and should not contain. But that’s not my point, which was made in cynical tones, as I agree with Dionysus about Robin von Holdt having several conflicts of interest; with these and anyway, how could he not have appointed auditors, especially after similar criticism for the Top 100 SA wines competition? If you, Mia (who has made a comment on http://www.grape.co.za) and the other judges can’t see that, then I’m afraid your collective credibility will also disappear down the drain.

by Angela Lloyd on December 2, 2011 at 6:05 pm. Reply #

Dear Angela,
First of all thank you for taking the time to read through the judging protocol. After reading your comment, I feel that there is still some lack of clarity and I would like to invite you and Dionysus on the 21st December to Rodwell House so that I can take you through the judging process and the objective and transparent approach to it. It is difficult to explain the complexity of our objective judging protocol on this small comment box. We are more than open for constructive dialogue. Regards, Jorg

by Jorg Pfutzner on December 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm. Reply #

Hi Jorg

One thing I have made clear and wish to stress is that I in no way imply that yourself or any of your judges in anyway favored Rodwell House. Of that there is no evidence. BUT I think it is fair to say that any reasonable minded person would find it remiss that Robin/Rodwell House enters his/their own competition. What would you say if the lotto staff won the lotto, it makes no sense! This error of judgement has put this competition in a bad light and leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I have the following questions:
Was the event audited? I think I know the answer to this question. NO. Why then did Robin say that it was? I realize that many wine competitions are not audited this really not that a great deal. However why did Robin say it was?

Were any restaurants visited? I think I know the answer to this question too: NO! Why then did Robin say 20? If these restaurants were visited please provide proof. This is very important in my opinion. I realize that most of this competition is based on the criteria set out in the entry form documents and that the scoring is clearly spelled out. However surely info provided by entrants needed to be verified?

Did Rodewll House pay the modest entry fee and did it pay the winning list marketing fee? Could proof of this be provided?

Cheers Dionysus

by dionysus on December 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm. Reply #

Hi Higgo

I personally spent a good few hours studying all documents relating to this competition before I decided to ask some very important questions. They are all very clear, detailed and exhaustive documents. I am in also in no way suggesting that any of the winners needed “subjective influence”. The winners are all worthy winners.

Cheers
Dionysus

by dionysus on December 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm. Reply #

I think that we have reached a point in wine journalism that there is no return to reality.
It is fantastic how little fact is research before jumping in to the wrong wine barrel in South Africa.
You more negative the journalist can be, the better they think it is.
This is not how we sell South Africa, since this is based on a bigger picture outside South Africa.
Our biggest money making today is tourism and wine, restaurants and hotels.
These partners all need help with great feedback, positive review in this harsh climate how they can up their business and find more clients.
This was Top 100 Wine List challenge first priority, to enhance and uplift the unique selling point for restaurants and hotels.

Advice to whom it may concern:
First advice would be to look up the website for Top 100 Wine Challenge criteria.
Second, call us if there is something that is not transparent enough and we can explain.
Thirdly, why not starting to investigate more of how many bad and bought wine lists are out there that are ripping clients off instead of wasting time on something that actually is helping the industry?
None of the judges would ever put his or hers name to this if one could not stand behind it.
The winning wine lists all have been on the top scoring of Diners Club wine list awards for the last 6 years, do not think they need any pimping to shine!

Warm regards
Mia Martensson

by Mia Martensson on December 2, 2011 at 4:32 pm. Reply #

Hi Mia

With regards to your advice:
Firstly I studied the documents relating to the competition. I think I have spent more time on the TOP 100 SA Wines website doing just that than most people.
Secondly, I don’t need to call, Twitter is an accepted means of communication, after these questions weren’t answered I decide to post this blog. Note, from my Twitter questions or those posed here I have not received one answer from anybody related to this competition.
Thirdly,I agree 100% there are too many bought wine lists. But that battle is not mine to fight. I also agree that a Wine List Challenge type competition is only good for the industry, it is certain issues around the running of the competition that still needs answering.
Fourthly,I have nothing but admiration and respect for the judges. I am however still concerned that they and the panel chairman allowed Rodwell House to partake.
Fithly, all Dinners Club Winners therefore evreything above board…If we were just going to go along with Dinners Club winners the why the need for the competition? It is not the plausibility of the winning list that I am questioning.

Cheers Dionysus

by dionysus on December 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm. Reply #

‘The level of ‘reporting’ on the subject of corporate governance, by Dionysus, is un-researched, melodramatic and totally without substance. A cut n past job to suit its ego appears to be the underpinning tactic. Comic antics suit Beano lovers.

Lloyds comments are as shallow as is her relevance in our vibrant and exciting fine-wine industry.

Dionysus should research King 1, King 2 and much more. ‘Chinese Walls’ are not bamboo structures built by yellow-tinted bricklayers. Professionals coexist in conflicted environments by observing protocol, demonstrating compliance with governance and discharging their professional obligations with integrity.

How pleasing that that such environments could never include ‘Dionysus’.

Reasoned, considered , civil, dialogue, is always welcome on the Top 100 site and by Top 100 personnel. Our commitment to the fine wine and restaurant businesses in SA is absolute.

These are our first, and last, words, on this site.’

by top 100 sa wines on December 2, 2011 at 4:55 pm. Reply #

Hi Robin

Cut and paste, where? Un researched, melodramatic and totally without substance. Your entitled to your opinion and I mine. I don’t read comics and perhaps that is why I unlike you think this is no laughing matter.

I also think your attack on Mrs Lloyd is below the belt, it is personal and does nothing to further the debate. Her contribution to the SA Wine media, competition arena are to be applauded, and besides attacking an “old lady”,(please for give me for saying that) is not nice.

Robin you are however starting to remind me of a politician…where there is fire there is truth….and when it is the story is true: play the man! Your personal attack on myself and Angela will not stop me from asking the relevant questions. I have asked you many questions via twitter, the same as I have here. All that you have done is be evasive, dismissive, personal and defensive. Not once have you bothered to answer the questions put before you. The longer you take to do this, the more the suspicion and doubt will grow. This will not go away no matter how hard you wish it away. Your reputation and that of your competition depends on it. The storm clouds are gathering!

Cheers
Dionysus

by dionysus on December 3, 2011 at 5:49 pm. Reply #

Hi Angela,
I am disappointed that you didn’t speak with me about the judgment procedure and assume that my integrity is for sale. Had you asked, I would have happily shown you that the work we have done is not a charade but rather having objective criteria and accountability in mind. Please read the scoring protocol on http://www.top100sawines.com/enter-winelist.php None of us have any shares or vested interests in any restaurants, we merely wish contribute to the improvement of the level of wine lists in South Africa for the benefit of the South African consumer. It seems easier to presume the worst or to talk down than to engage creatively with parties and discover the truth when facts and credibility are in question.

by Jorg Pfutzner on December 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm. Reply #

I’m afraid what none of the judges seem to appreciate is that my argument is not about the competition per se, but about ethics. It was unethical for Rodwell House to enter, whoever made the actual entry and however objective the scoring system. I do think the judges, whether they see it in the same light as me, should have dissuaded the restaurant from entering. It would have caused far less hot air.

by Angela Lloyd on December 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm. Reply #

Couldn’t agree more. And to protect what little credibility is left in this process and competition Rodwell House would withdraw from the final winning list.

Cheers
Dionysus

by dionysus on December 3, 2011 at 6:45 pm. Reply #

I miss Bob and Idi.

by Hennie @ Batonage on December 16, 2011 at 11:58 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.