http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... /16177909/
Have the lawyers got a sniff? Is there the faint smell of blood in the water?
Cheers
Ps: ripped from Richard Seales FB page.
Templeton rye class action?
Templeton rye class action?
in goes your eye out
If one wants to enjoy a revealing interview of 2 gents involved with Templeton, Mark Gillespie of Whiskycast has this episode for your enjoyment.
Apparently, the parts where nothing is said in response to Mark's questions is more revealing than what IS said.
Now I need to listen to it!
Update: Tune in at about the 18 minute mark
Apparently, the parts where nothing is said in response to Mark's questions is more revealing than what IS said.
Now I need to listen to it!
Update: Tune in at about the 18 minute mark
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
I hope everyone is sitting down...
...and thank to the U-man for one of the most astounding interviews I've ever heard. Even though the interviewer makes a few softball observations, he also asks some tough questions.
Whatever you do, you must, must, MUST listen to this interview, starting from 18 min. Just after 34, you will hear the most unexpected, revealing and shocking admission I've ever heard and frankly, I was floored at their seemingly casual admissions.
I'm serious. BTW when you listen to it, keep in mind that this interview of 9/12 was recorded earlier, and apparently before da'rum's link to USA Today (and an actual lawsuit) on 9/24.
Both attempt to portray themselves as simple, good old country boys who just didn't understand those complicated big city regulations. Hogwash! These guys know exactly what they were doing. Their brazenness in this interview is beyond belief, as they expect us to buy their poor, dumb us pitch.
Good fackin' grief! Stay tuned!
...and thank to the U-man for one of the most astounding interviews I've ever heard. Even though the interviewer makes a few softball observations, he also asks some tough questions.
Whatever you do, you must, must, MUST listen to this interview, starting from 18 min. Just after 34, you will hear the most unexpected, revealing and shocking admission I've ever heard and frankly, I was floored at their seemingly casual admissions.
I'm serious. BTW when you listen to it, keep in mind that this interview of 9/12 was recorded earlier, and apparently before da'rum's link to USA Today (and an actual lawsuit) on 9/24.
Both attempt to portray themselves as simple, good old country boys who just didn't understand those complicated big city regulations. Hogwash! These guys know exactly what they were doing. Their brazenness in this interview is beyond belief, as they expect us to buy their poor, dumb us pitch.
Good fackin' grief! Stay tuned!
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nice link Uisge, there's a tonne of eyebrow raising moments in that interview. I did buy their naivety in the sense that they thought no one would care, because they don't, they don't love the whiskey they're making, they love the story and the fact it will make them money. They are in it for the cash pure and simple and they wear that fact on their sleeves because they think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Is there? Ask a whisky lover and he'll say yes, ask a business man and he'll say no. Maybe I'm a dupe but I don't think people that are openly oblivious to the emotional and purists vision of whisky are as bad as the likes that are plainly aware and try and deceive.
Is there? Ask a whisky lover and he'll say yes, ask a business man and he'll say no. Maybe I'm a dupe but I don't think people that are openly oblivious to the emotional and purists vision of whisky are as bad as the likes that are plainly aware and try and deceive.
Last edited by da'rum on Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
in goes your eye out
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
OK, here's a brief rundown...
This interview begins with the fact that after years of gross misrepresentation that Templeton has finally agreed to properly label their "Templeton Rye" (Iowa) is actually "distilled in Indiana" (by MGP). Accompanied by a donation of $1M to the city, some may see both as a belated attempt to calm the natives, but... too late! A lawsuit (per da'rum) has been filed. From the interview (linked at bottom):
1. They claim they didn't know, that the label was approved, so it must have been fine, right? They add that had they known it would become an issue, they'd have changed the label in the first place.
The truth: they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
2. Despite the fact that their marketing is entirely oriented to leading the buyer to believe the rye is made in Templeton to an old Prohibition recipe, they weakly attempt to blame it on the public for "not doing their research". This is actually insulting.
3. They claim to be confused as to the illegality of their old label, based on the fact that their COLA application was approved. For the record, COLA applications are perfunctory and are routinely granted prior to production. It does not relieve the promoter from following the TTB's CFR regulations, all of which must be met and which clearly require that the state where the distillation occurred be labelled (Indiana, MGP). This a dodge, pure and simple.
4. They claim that the TTB's failure to hunt them down and enforce the regulations must have meant approval of their deviousness.
5. Another dodge was the curious claim that "we didn't know", and "you have to remember this was back in 2006", as though they made their decisions in the age of pre-literate man. They continue this line of evasion with "hey, I'm a banker and Keith is an engineer, we didn't know anything about this stuff", a version of "I'm not a teacher and I didn't know this was a school zone, officer", lol.
6. Next, they attempt to tie the MGP bulk product to Templeton through a tortured explanation that yes, they started out with a 300 gallon still in Templeton with which they tried to make their Templeton Rye, but hey, it was too much work, and the whisky wasn't happening - take a breath - so they took a bottle of one partner's grandfather's rye (implying it was made in Templeton) and uh, then went to Indiana and consulted with MGP's "engineer" and saying "this is what we want".
Never you mind that MGP is a huge industrial distiller, and you get to pick from a menu of only two standard bulk ryes. That's it. Surprisingly, they admit that they really "didn't know what we were doing, so yes, that still was just a showpiece".
7. The interviewer then pins them down and asks, how soon will you actually be distilling rye in Templeton? "Well, uh, we take the long term view" is the only constipated answer they seem to be able to push out. I guess that means not anytime soon. I'd suggest some Ron Matusalem, perhaps the added prune juice might help. They note that see themselves as the next Lynchburg, Tennessee (Jack Daniels). Perhaps Chip Tate could help here, right after he becomes the next Balvenie.
8. Then there was the hangdog "It was probably a violation, but it wasn't intentional, I can tell you that." "Clever marketing is not what we're about". Sure. Of course. Just a couple country bumpkins. "We were gonna change the label anyway to a torn edge look, so I guess we'll just do it sooner". As for the new label showing "distilled in Indiana", they aren't even sure of that, since "You know how it is with those regulations, one page says one thing and one says another... but we've got a guy, a Cola lawyer and we're just gonna do it anyway even if we don't get approval". Yuppers, sure boyz.
Regulations, rules - didn't matter before, so it's hardly surprising they don't matter now.
9. "Now we're gonna be the poster boy for transparency" they add, but then make a blatant admission that I could barely believe. "It's really not anybody's business how we make our Templeton Rye, but just like Kentucky Fried Chicken of Coca Cola, we have our secret recipe."
He then actually admits they then went to a "flavor engineer" at Clarendon Flavor Co. with a bottle of Grandpa's old bottle of real Templeton rye, with the order that Clarendon alter the MGP bulk product to taste "just like" the old man's stuff. Apparently the engineers at MGP just couldn't do it with their two standard bulk pure ryes.
I might point out that the original Prohibition rye and recipe was not available, so even if Clarendon could magically succeed, the result would still not be the original Templeton Prohibition rye they've been flogging for the past eight years.
10. Astounded, the interview asks point blank whether the bottle contains only whiskey and water. "No it doesn't" he quickly admits and immediately diverts into a long riff about how Clarendon was able match the whiskies so well that "you can't hardly tell the difference". He then pivots again by claiming that because their "proprietary process" (dumping in the flavoring) takes place in Templeton, that well that just further cements the notion that this is a Templeton Rye. Next he'll be claiming a "Templeton sunrise" well, because you can see it from there.
11. "So should it be labeled that there's flavoring in it?" the interviewer presses. "No! Uh, well..." says the one, but is immediately interrupted by his partner, who jumps over him to claim that the harmless coloring clause allows 2-1/2% of such additions, and "what we add is less than that", so this flavoring doesn't need to be labelled! Pretty good for a couple farmers who don't understand the regulations. However even this hip shot misses since that clause has little to do with the addition of actual flavoring (as most of you know). "It's proprietary so we don't have to share exactly what we do anyway". These guys either profess ignorance of the regs, or in the alternative, quote them as it suits them.
12. The interviewer claims ignorance of the clause, but allows that he trusts them that it exists (however irrelevant). At the end of interview, he looks up and like them, incorrectly cites it to claim that their addition of flavor is "legal" and does not have to be labelled. Au contraire, it does.
Flat Ass Bottom Line
Da'rum has nailed it. These guys are alternatively surprised, confident, disbelieving, dumb, smart, evasive, regretful and condescending - whatever it takes, and performed with such ease! It reminds me of the guy who was caught by his wife, banging his mistress..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s3vHFyybxk
*******
The interview, a must listen!
http://whiskycast.com/episode-496-september-12-2014/
This interview begins with the fact that after years of gross misrepresentation that Templeton has finally agreed to properly label their "Templeton Rye" (Iowa) is actually "distilled in Indiana" (by MGP). Accompanied by a donation of $1M to the city, some may see both as a belated attempt to calm the natives, but... too late! A lawsuit (per da'rum) has been filed. From the interview (linked at bottom):
1. They claim they didn't know, that the label was approved, so it must have been fine, right? They add that had they known it would become an issue, they'd have changed the label in the first place.
The truth: they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
2. Despite the fact that their marketing is entirely oriented to leading the buyer to believe the rye is made in Templeton to an old Prohibition recipe, they weakly attempt to blame it on the public for "not doing their research". This is actually insulting.
3. They claim to be confused as to the illegality of their old label, based on the fact that their COLA application was approved. For the record, COLA applications are perfunctory and are routinely granted prior to production. It does not relieve the promoter from following the TTB's CFR regulations, all of which must be met and which clearly require that the state where the distillation occurred be labelled (Indiana, MGP). This a dodge, pure and simple.
4. They claim that the TTB's failure to hunt them down and enforce the regulations must have meant approval of their deviousness.
5. Another dodge was the curious claim that "we didn't know", and "you have to remember this was back in 2006", as though they made their decisions in the age of pre-literate man. They continue this line of evasion with "hey, I'm a banker and Keith is an engineer, we didn't know anything about this stuff", a version of "I'm not a teacher and I didn't know this was a school zone, officer", lol.
6. Next, they attempt to tie the MGP bulk product to Templeton through a tortured explanation that yes, they started out with a 300 gallon still in Templeton with which they tried to make their Templeton Rye, but hey, it was too much work, and the whisky wasn't happening - take a breath - so they took a bottle of one partner's grandfather's rye (implying it was made in Templeton) and uh, then went to Indiana and consulted with MGP's "engineer" and saying "this is what we want".
Never you mind that MGP is a huge industrial distiller, and you get to pick from a menu of only two standard bulk ryes. That's it. Surprisingly, they admit that they really "didn't know what we were doing, so yes, that still was just a showpiece".
7. The interviewer then pins them down and asks, how soon will you actually be distilling rye in Templeton? "Well, uh, we take the long term view" is the only constipated answer they seem to be able to push out. I guess that means not anytime soon. I'd suggest some Ron Matusalem, perhaps the added prune juice might help. They note that see themselves as the next Lynchburg, Tennessee (Jack Daniels). Perhaps Chip Tate could help here, right after he becomes the next Balvenie.
8. Then there was the hangdog "It was probably a violation, but it wasn't intentional, I can tell you that." "Clever marketing is not what we're about". Sure. Of course. Just a couple country bumpkins. "We were gonna change the label anyway to a torn edge look, so I guess we'll just do it sooner". As for the new label showing "distilled in Indiana", they aren't even sure of that, since "You know how it is with those regulations, one page says one thing and one says another... but we've got a guy, a Cola lawyer and we're just gonna do it anyway even if we don't get approval". Yuppers, sure boyz.
Regulations, rules - didn't matter before, so it's hardly surprising they don't matter now.
9. "Now we're gonna be the poster boy for transparency" they add, but then make a blatant admission that I could barely believe. "It's really not anybody's business how we make our Templeton Rye, but just like Kentucky Fried Chicken of Coca Cola, we have our secret recipe."
He then actually admits they then went to a "flavor engineer" at Clarendon Flavor Co. with a bottle of Grandpa's old bottle of real Templeton rye, with the order that Clarendon alter the MGP bulk product to taste "just like" the old man's stuff. Apparently the engineers at MGP just couldn't do it with their two standard bulk pure ryes.
I might point out that the original Prohibition rye and recipe was not available, so even if Clarendon could magically succeed, the result would still not be the original Templeton Prohibition rye they've been flogging for the past eight years.
10. Astounded, the interview asks point blank whether the bottle contains only whiskey and water. "No it doesn't" he quickly admits and immediately diverts into a long riff about how Clarendon was able match the whiskies so well that "you can't hardly tell the difference". He then pivots again by claiming that because their "proprietary process" (dumping in the flavoring) takes place in Templeton, that well that just further cements the notion that this is a Templeton Rye. Next he'll be claiming a "Templeton sunrise" well, because you can see it from there.
11. "So should it be labeled that there's flavoring in it?" the interviewer presses. "No! Uh, well..." says the one, but is immediately interrupted by his partner, who jumps over him to claim that the harmless coloring clause allows 2-1/2% of such additions, and "what we add is less than that", so this flavoring doesn't need to be labelled! Pretty good for a couple farmers who don't understand the regulations. However even this hip shot misses since that clause has little to do with the addition of actual flavoring (as most of you know). "It's proprietary so we don't have to share exactly what we do anyway". These guys either profess ignorance of the regs, or in the alternative, quote them as it suits them.
12. The interviewer claims ignorance of the clause, but allows that he trusts them that it exists (however irrelevant). At the end of interview, he looks up and like them, incorrectly cites it to claim that their addition of flavor is "legal" and does not have to be labelled. Au contraire, it does.
Flat Ass Bottom Line
Da'rum has nailed it. These guys are alternatively surprised, confident, disbelieving, dumb, smart, evasive, regretful and condescending - whatever it takes, and performed with such ease! It reminds me of the guy who was caught by his wife, banging his mistress..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s3vHFyybxk
*******
The interview, a must listen!
http://whiskycast.com/episode-496-september-12-2014/
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
da'rum wrote:I'm sure I heard them say that the TTB audited them and gave them a tick so unless I'm mistaken the ttb must also take some responsibility or....?
In a word (well two), not really.
It's fair to say that enforcement is lax, not to mention a very cozy relationship between the powerful mega's and the relatively poorly compensated regulators. I just learned that while the number of distilleries has tripled since 2008, the budget and size of the TTB has actually decreased. Remember too that most regulatory personnel see the job as a stepping stone and introduction to a much better job in the private sector.
Further most of these "audits" are of such mundane things as alcohol content, physical inventory, transfers of inventory, finished product records, storage inventory, processing inventory, proper reports being sent, taxes paid and the like. Perfunctory, and these two boyz know that.
That Templeton has had only two audits in nearly 10 years confirms this. It is also important to separate being "passed" by the TTB - a regulatory event - is separate and apart from civil liability, which is entirely a different matter and settled in a much more formal and aggressive fashion. Note too that with the tripling of distilleries, audits become fewer and more perfunctory. How many people have passed their company's annual physical, then dropped dead from a massive coronary, lol. According to the linked report in 2013 out of just 86 "violations" (a very low number) there was only one - just one - finding of non-compliance for failing to include mandatory information ("distilled in Indiana").
Flat Ass Bottom Line
Passing a rare and perfunctory and rushed audit in no way shields a distiller from civil liability. It is the private sector - you and I - and our class action attorneys that will change things and in a hurry. The gate is open and now that the big law firms have discovered a new and profitable pasture in which to graze - Martha, bar the door!
You can be sure the distillers have taken note and are self-regulating as we speak.
*******
http://www.americancraftspirits.org/upl ... r_acda.pdf
http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/common_compl ... s-ds.shtml