Publisher’s Note
This article addresses allegations, institutional failures, and contested claims involving the Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas, a credentialing body that has played a significant role in shaping professional wine education in the United States and beyond. Given the seriousness of the subject matter—including allegations of sexual misconduct, questions of governance, and disputes over representation—we believe it is essential to clearly state our editorial intent.
Our aim is neither to prosecute nor to defend the Court, its leadership, or its members. The purpose of this coverage is to inform the wine trade by assembling verified reporting, documented institutional actions, and good-faith criticism from within the profession, alongside the Court’s stated responses. Where allegations are cited, they are drawn from established reporting by The New York Times and from on-the-record statements by named individuals. Where interpretations or critiques are offered, they reflect viewpoints expressed by industry participants, not adjudicated findings.
We recognize that many credential holders, educators, and employers have built careers through the Court’s programs and continue to regard the Master Sommelier title as a meaningful professional benchmark. We also recognize that others—particularly women and people from historically underrepresented groups—have experienced the institution differently. Both realities can coexist, and responsible trade journalism requires examining them together rather than selectively.
This publication does not take a position on whether individuals should participate in, withdraw from, or boycott any professional organization. Decisions of that nature are personal and professional, and must be made with full access to facts rather than editorial pressure. Our role is to provide context, not conclusions.
We are committed to ongoing coverage of wine education and professional standards, including reporting on reforms, governance changes, and alternative credentialing pathways as they develop. We welcome responses, corrections, and substantiated additions from readers across the trade, and we will continue to update our reporting as new information emerges.
What’s Proven, What’s Alleged, and How the Institution Has Responded
This article was updated following a 2020 investigation by The New York Times, which documented allegations of sexual misconduct involving members of the Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas. In the years since, the Court has faced resignations, governance reforms, sustained criticism, and vocal defense from credential holders across the industry.
Those defenses—offered by Masters, candidates, and employers—are compiled separately in Sommeliers Speak Out. Taken together, the competing narratives reflect an institution navigating an unusually public reckoning at a time when authority structures across the wine trade are under pressure.
What follows is not an advocacy piece. It is a review of the central issues raised by members of the trade over the past decade, the factual record supporting those concerns, and the steps the Court says it has taken in response.
Examination Integrity and Governance
The most clearly substantiated institutional failure occurred in 2018, when the Court invalidated the tasting portion of the Master Sommelier Diploma Examination after determining that a board member had disclosed confidential exam information. All tasting results were voided, and the individual involved was sanctioned.
While the response was decisive, the episode exposed structural vulnerabilities that critics argue remain unresolved. Chief among them: overlapping roles within a small professional community, where senior Masters may mentor candidates, serve as examiners, and later participate in scoring or appeals.
The Court maintains that its examination framework requires discretion to correct for flawed questions or anomalous results, and that internal controls are sufficient. Critics counter that without independent oversight or clearer separation of roles, confidence in exam neutrality—particularly at the highest level—remains strained.
Sexual Misconduct Allegations
The most consequential challenge to the Court’s legitimacy emerged in 2020, when the Times reported allegations from 21 women describing harassment, coercion, and assault by Master Sommeliers, some of whom held senior or instructional roles.
In response, the Court commissioned an external investigation, revised its code of ethics, restructured governance, and removed or accepted the resignations of several members. Supporters argue these actions reflect meaningful accountability within a volunteer-driven organization. Critics argue they were reactive, delayed, and insufficient to address deeper cultural dynamics.
It is also widely acknowledged that sexual harassment is endemic within the broader restaurant and hospitality industry—a point frequently raised by those defending the Court. The unresolved question is whether a trade credentialing body bears responsibility to lead on workplace ethics precisely because it certifies and elevates industry leaders.
Representation, Access, and Race
Demographic data show that Black Master Sommeliers remain exceedingly rare, accounting for well under one percent of credential holders. Some members attribute this disparity to pipeline issues endemic to fine dining and wine education more broadly, including cost, access, and professional networks.
Others, including educators such as Tahiirah Habibi, argue that examination culture, informal gatekeeping, and leadership homogeneity reinforce those barriers. Former Masters, including Richard Betts, have publicly criticized the Court’s reluctance to engage with racial equity initiatives during moments of industry-wide reckoning.
The Court has consistently stated that it avoids political or social positioning to preserve neutrality. Critics respond that neutrality functions differently when power and access are unevenly distributed.
Politics, Funding, and Board Composition
A separate line of criticism concerns governance optics rather than formal policy. Public donation records indicate that a majority of board members—or their employers—are aligned with Republican political giving. Defenders note that political affiliation has no bearing on examination standards or professional competence, and that trade bodies must remain ideologically neutral.
Critics argue that representation is less about party politics than perspective: a board drawn largely from corporate hospitality, private clubs, and luxury retail may struggle to reflect the realities of a younger, more diverse workforce. Whether this constitutes a governance failure or a communications problem remains debated.
Financial Structure and Trade Obligations
IRS filings show that the Court derives the majority of its revenue from examination fees, with a substantial share allocated to administration and compensation. Supporters note that international examination logistics are costly and that the Court was never designed as a grant-making or advocacy organization.
Others counter that as a 501(c)(6) trade association, the Court is obligated to promote the common interests of the profession, not merely credential individuals. From that perspective, the absence of direct industry-support initiatives—such as training standards, safety programs, or scholarships—raises questions about mission alignment rather than legality.
Formal Response from the Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas
In public statements and member communications since 2020, the Court has emphasized that it acknowledges past failures while rejecting claims that it is institutionally indifferent or structurally corrupt.
The Court has stated that it has:
- Commissioned independent investigations into misconduct allegations
- Revised its code of ethics and disciplinary procedures
- Reconstituted its board and examination committees
- Implemented mandatory ethics training for instructors and examiners
- Strengthened confidentiality and conflict-of-interest policies
- Committed to improving transparency and member communication
The Court has also argued that it should not be held responsible for broader failures of the restaurant industry, nor judged solely by historical demographics that reflect long-standing access issues in fine dining.
Leadership has repeatedly stated that reform is ongoing, that examination standards remain rigorous and fair, and that the credential continues to hold value precisely because corrective action—however imperfect—was taken publicly.
Alternatives and a Changing Landscape
It is also true that the Court now operates in a more competitive credentialing environment. Programs offered by Wine & Spirit Education Trust, the Institute of Masters of Wine, and independent educators provide parallel routes to professional credibility.
For employers, distributors, and hospitality groups, this diversification has shifted hiring norms. The Master Sommelier title remains influential, but it is no longer uncontested as the singular apex credential.
Where the Trade Stands
The Court of Master Sommeliers has taken concrete steps to address failures that once would have remained internal. It has also lost trust—particularly among younger professionals—at a moment when authority in wine is being renegotiated across education, media, and hospitality.
For the trade, the question is no longer whether scrutiny is justified. That phase has passed. The question is whether the Court’s reforms are sufficient to restore confidence—and whether the industry continues to see value in a centralized credentialing authority at all.
Participation, reform, disengagement, and alternatives now coexist. The outcome will not be determined by editorials or defenses alone, but by where the trade ultimately places its confidence, investment, and professional capital.
I have been researching for a month or so trying to decide what company I should choose to do my Somm Cert. Because of this article, I choose to go with CMS! Tired of the garbage folks. Just tired. Time to grow up and be an adult. Not everything is racist. People have overused that word so much since Obamba took office that it no longer has any meaning. All I really do when I hear this word is next…………………….
Wow Kay, you missed the entire point. There are still women out there that haven’t come forward from this list. You do you Kay, because the other wine programs are better off without people like you that continue support this cyclical system. Good luck babe!
I don’t doubt that there is an issue of creepy old guys discriminating against women and minorities. That should be changed, and that can only be changed from the ground up, introduce more people to wine! WE need to do it
However,
I hate this idea that corporations and entities should vow support for X righteous cause!
It’s just silly!! Like you have every major CORP pandering to social change despite USUALLY not giving a hoot about such issues.. It’s silly and honestly, certification boards like this should not express opinions on HOT political issues.
Why does it even matter? Like it’s complete vortue signaling.. “Hey you wine enthusiasts, do you support my cause or do you SUCK”
There is PLENTY to criticize the old crusty smelly greasy sommeliers guild for.
But that, and being republican.. NO BUENO IMO
My wife and I just watched the documentary “Somm” on Netflix. We saw the incredible amount of preparation and dedication it takes in order to pass the Master Somm exam. That is much more time and effort that I would want to put in. Not that I am lazy. I was an air traffic controller, and put in the effort to pass the FAA Academy, which has a very high washout rate (or at least had, when I attended decades ago).
That being said, the “wokeness” of the complaints about Somms are par for the course nowadays. Absolutely EVERYTHING has to have the “correct” percentages of demographics, or else they are “obviously” racist, sexist, political, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.
Gee, too many Republican Master Somms? How about take a look at university professors in the U.S.? Over 80% Democrat, with the political donations matching the percentage. In order to fix that, shouldn’t they “flatten the curve” of bias in education, by eliminating some the the Leftist professors, and make an even playing field in education? Seems to be a little more important to our country, than the demographics of people who taste wine for a living. Don’t you think?
This isn’t about what tribe you are in. This is just about good American values: don’t play favorites, let the cream rise to the top, and protect those weaker than us.
Putting your faith in a television show is not a way towards understanding the issue. Sure, people work hard, but the outcomes have been shown to be rigged. What does it matter if you work hard but will never be let into the club? It’s not just about gender or race. If you are unattractive, overweight, or handicapped, you are also very unlikely to be let into the club.
Instead of abandoning or boycotting the court altogether, is it not a better idea to continue to oust those that deserve to be irradiated, replacing them with people that care about the industry and its future and can help to ensure that diversity is a central tenet ingrained in the fabric of the newly revived court of master sommeliers? That’s my opinion. It wouldn’t be a terrible thing if woman were in charge For a little change, not to in any way imply that I struggle is Real for people of color as well. “Canceling it” altogether it’s just going to give the Republicans the BS ammo they want to continue to spew fourth their lame narratives for those small minded enough to listen.
Or maybe let another sommelier agency take up the mantle?
Hey Tyrone,
First, I sympathize with your sentiment of woke culture and your call on the article. Good eye.
Aside from that, you said you went this route, the sommelier route?? If you did become a somm., is the curriculum the same now compared to when you passed it, how long did it take to become one and did being a somm make it easy to find employment?
About working as a somm, is there a difference between one and someone who isn’t a somm (say, a bar tender) in terms of work and pay and anything else you’d want to mention?
Thank you,
Domiano
This is in perfect lockstep with the dumpster fire that is our current state of affairs…
“SOMM is an independent board that reviews professional certifications in the wine trade.”
Can you please publish the entity status and tax filing status of your Board as well as a list of acting board members so that those that disagree with your point of view and political beliefs can boycott the businesses that your board members own or are employed by?
There will always be someone with a “victim mentality” projecting their insecurities onto someone, begging others to join their bandwagon. For the reasons you have in suggesting boycotting CMS, this makes it quite clear to me that they are on the right track. When a founding entity promotes progress by inclusion, one should stand up and take notice.
I suggest you get control over your emotions, words and actions and be proactive in finding solutions to issues you feel need attention rather than attempting to dismantle things you feel threatened by.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This Individual is a Licensed Private Investigator from Texas. We do not know if she is employed by CMS, but that would be interesting.
I actually from California, have worked in TX in the service industry for several years and have ZERO affiliation with CMS. I am pursuing becoming a Sommelier and in my research came upon this scandal. My views and comments have nothing to do with me being Private Investigator.
I am actually from California, have worked in TX in the service industry for several years and have ZERO affiliation with CMS. I am considering becoming a Sommelier and in my research came upon this article. My views and comments have nothing to do with me being a Private Investigator and rather came from my clear and open-mindedness.
Kelly,
The language you use shows you see Americans from other parts of the country as fundamentally different from you, and therefore are not worthy of your sympathy or consideration. Open minded people do not dismiss the growing evidence of corruption, sexual assault, and bias of CMS as being caused by a “victim mentality. ” There is simply too much evidence that this is true.
I never have known the organization, in my limited experience, to be racist or sexist in the slightest degree: I am a white male that failed, then passed.
While I can understand the claims, given the times, I fear that they are visceral rather than facts based.
Bottom line, I do not think the organization is racist or sexist, but it is worth looking at. And, if we are going to look at it, it must be based on data. Last time I checked Laura Maniec (Fiorvanti) was the most “celebrity” Somm. So that flies hard against any sexist narrative, for example.
I’m just curious. As a white male, do you feel like your experiences of racism and sexism might be limited by your race and gender? Historically, white males have been at the top of the totem pole. How, then, could you know what injustice looks like? Also, having a women as a token female “celebrity” somm proves nothing against the daily slights of sexism and racism that corrode mental health and drive for people who actually have to deal with this issue i.e. not you white man!
Depressing someone still needs to explain this sort of basic shit to you – maybe loosen up on those Burgundy notecards and learn a bit on how to be a decent human being. It will open up your eyes, I swear
I’ve read the article, the follow-up article, and all the comments. I have one simple observation:
The people who are defending CMSa are cherry-picking. They ignore most of the data and topics introduced but narrow in on the slivers of this article that they think they can discredit. That is intellectually dishonest and shows a very poor grasp of the deep and complex institutional programs that are highlighted in this article.
To see how flimsy their arguments are –and how tainted their logic is– all you have to do is change “Court of Master Sommeliers” with another professional certification board, the AICPA (Association of International Certified Professional Accountants).
If there was evidence that a board that certified accountants may be corrupt and politically biased, would you reflexively defend them? Or would you demand an investigation? What if that board ignored longstanding complaints of racism and sexism within the accounting profession? Would you defend them?
People and institutions have been canceled for much less evidence than shown here. I think their defenses are simply based on blatant tribalism: the very thing that this article –to my mind– has exposed.
I have been a woman in the fine dining / wine business for 40 years . I have been a Somm since 2006 . My experience with Court of Lords Master Sommeliers has been varied . I have been in the food and beverage business most of my life . Have I been sexually harassed ? You bet . Discriminated because of my sex ? Absolutely . The Good Old Boys are everywhere and they are being exposed . There are also women who falsely accuse men . I have seen that on multiple occasions .
I saw applicants who had the advantage of working along side Masters who benefited from their coaching , while I had to self study without the benefit of a private tutor . Is that fair ? Maybe . I do know that CMS does not make it easy to get into their club .
As far as the political bias . The last Master class I attended in Seattle was taught by a MS who was sharing his very Leftist views which I did not pay to hear and turned me away from ever attending another class by him . Not because of his politics , but because that was not the place for that to be aired . Political views are personal and like religion should be kept to yourself , not in a business setting . . Politics and the wine business have little in common so I don’t care how many Republicans or Democrat’s are on the Board . I just want them to be fair and professional .
Sommeliers have the reputation of being pretentious and a bit stuffy . That kind of goes with the fine dining industry as a whole . I think that is changing . I think that being gracious and more approachable sells more wine . During the service portion of the testing , the MS seem to enjoy being the most difficult customers , almost sadistically . They should probably work on that . Perception is reality .
As far as racist , My experience as a veteran of the industry is , in the heat of battle we have no color , you are judged by you ability ,how hard you work and your attitude , period . 4 Star Hotels in Hawaii , Ski resorts , Tribal Casino , Nevada Casino and National Parks , all the same , If you worked hard you got respect . Of course there are bad players , but on the whole people are people . We all want the same things . Care and comfort for our families and respect for the work we do .
I have respect for the CMS , that doesn’t mean that they don’t need to fix their obvious flaws , but you don’t need to” throw the baby out with the bathwater ” . I know that some people have bad experiences because they are unprepared for the enormity of the material that you are tested on . If it was easy, every wine swilling ” know it all ” would be a Somm .
Non-somm here, but male progressive democrat wine enthusiast with friends on the court. I have read both the article and the response page, and all I have to say is that while your points are important and potentially valid, to levy such heinous accusations at an organization with weak supporting documentation dismantles your points.
Without first hand knowledge myself, CMSA might have a race problem, but you did not establish that (an Instagram post as your evidence, and one that challenges the court but does not name it as a source of racism). Therefore, I can’t take that portion of your article seriously. And since it lead off your list of offenses, it immediately weakens any credibility you might have in your further points. Is diversity important? Absolutely. Should the board reflect the body it represents? Sure. But the article demeans the court as a whole and treats the board as an afterthought. Instead of saying “The Court is Racist!” say, “The court fails to represent.” Otherwise you’re just falling into the realms of sensationalist journalism tropes frequented by the likes of Breitbart or The Blaze.
Ditto “The Court has a Sexual Violence Problem.” Rather than citing anecdotal evidence, how about researching statistics on sexual violence in the workplace that pertains to alcohol sales and specifically wine. Such a blanket statement, and a lack of support, again disparages any other valid arguments you might have. Again, is sexual violence in the workplace bad? Absolutely. Do you convince me that the Court has a sexual violence problem? Not in the least.
Ditto “The Sensationalist Republican Headline.” Are Republicans bad? Absolutely. Wait . . . that’s my liberal progressive democrat coming through. No they aren’t. I felt that this portion was your strongest section. You cited statistics! But, it fails to connect to our headline. “Is it time to boycott the Court?” The entirety of your article is about aiming for diversity and representation amongst the board, and while that is absolutely a noble argument and a fantastic idea, that’s not what you tried to sell me in the headline, or in these section headlines. Additionally, your argument about representation fails to tell me what percentage of the actual court body is democrat vs. republican, vs. independent, vs. communist, vs. etc.
Cheating is wrong. It happened. No, we don’t know if it happened prior to this particular occurrence, but again, zero evidence is provided to suggest anything other than favoritism. While favoritism can lead to cheating, which it did in this particular instance, nothing suggests that this is repetitive. Certainly an investigation into cheating would be a welcome way to dispel any uncertainty remaining, but it is the court’s prerogative to allow one or not and take whatever knock to their credibility that may come.
As far as the court fulfilling its non-profit status, you quote them as saying “The Court of Master Sommeliers was established to encourage improved standards of beverage knowledge and service in hotels and restaurants. Education was then, and remains today, the Court’s charter.” Isn’t this what they do? Isn’t this why their expenses are lodging and travel? How else are they supposed to teach a cadre of young somms if they don’t travel to where they are? Without a further breakdown and forensic analysis, I’m not sure you’ve convinced me that they are some sort of nefarious, pocket-stuffing coven, which seems to be your unwritten suggestion. As well, based on the quoted charter, the court doesn’t seem to be founded on the same principles as the AHLA, so why should they be held to the same standard?
And finally, this is the heart of your article (and it unfortunately doesn’t show up until your response article):
“We do not have a political agenda, as some have claimed. We simply want sommeliers to take a long and hard look at the CMSa and demand that it does better. We are not asking for a lot.
We are asking for its board of directors to reflect it’s members. Sommeliers are not just white male Republicans.
We are asking for the Court to address the ongoing scandals that threaten to tarnish everyone who is a member.
We are asking the Court to address the racism and sexual violence within our trade.
If the Court can’t address these issues, then maybe it is time to boycott the Court of Master Sommeliers until they address these systematic shortcomings.”
But this isn’t the premise of the original article as presented; it’s buried at the end of each section. An article rooted in these ideas might have validity had you not stumbled so much in your efforts to arrive here. Your evidence was lacking, you failed to provide an accurate statistical representation of the body of somms represented by the board, and thus are not providing convincing arguments that the board doesn’t represent the actual court. Your concerns are valid and should be addressed, but the vehicle for doing so should be much more convincing. Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board and craft an article more worthy of consideration.
Who is this G Osborne and who cares? She’s anti-male and anti-sommelier. She probably failed the exam and is asshurt. She couldn’t hack it if she tried. We can never EVER give in to the shrill libtards who want to take our jobs.
The fact that you would use the term “libtard” is digusting, amoral and repugnant and you should never work in the service industry period. You’re disgusting and if you’re a member of the CMS you should be stripped of any certifications. Period.
I agree that this article is inflammatory and ill advised. Free speech is not absolute, you can not yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. These are opinions and conjecture without supporting facts. As a Master of Wine (MW) candidate and person of color I believe this entire outlook is absolute insanity. Getting to this level requires hard work, dedication, and a level of sacrifice only seen in a few professional programs. The CMS, WSET, MW, and most other professional wine organizations are demanding you must make the commitment to succeed. I also agree with previous comments about the difficulty to access jobs in the industry for ANYONE, regardless of ethnicity or background. I also believe that automatically assuming a person, business, or organization is immediately evil because they are Republican shows a level of ignorance that ironically is what they are complaining about. No American, for any reason, needs to choose sides or condemn people or organizations because they disagree with their point of view, NO ONE. Of course, I am against sexual violence (being a victim), as well as hate and prejudice (being a victim), but to look at the world and this organization in such a narrow minded, ignorant, and purely fascist way makes you no better than what you are fighting against.
We felt it was important to give you a voice. Please check out our follow-up here. https://somm.us/opposing-viewpoints-from-the-sommelier-community/
Your statement is about as well composed as a chipmunk trying to avoid highway traffic. You’re calling facts conjecture when you yourself offer no evidence to the contrary. And given the current state of the Republican Party (racist, homophobic, climate deniers, science deniers- ALL facts by the way) for you to suggest that the article is somehow wrong for calling this out is beyond ridiculous. Wake up. Educate yourself. You can’t stand up for a “Court of Masters” who are at the same time accepting money from climate science deniers, racists and bigots. The percentages don’t lie and either do the very public donations that were clearly laid out in the aforementioned article. So your argument is a failed attempt at defending the indefensible. Now go and get an education before you open your mouth about a subject you don’t seem to grasp even on a basic level. What an embarrassment. Grow up and learn.
This seems to me a terribly written article from somebody who has no interest in responsible journalism. As both a female and a Democrat, I do not believe a boycott is reasonable, and it detracts and demeans those in CMS who have devoted hundreds of hours to the pursuit of wine knowledge. It’s ridiculous to hold individuals responsible for the donations or political leanings of the company they are employed by. I also don’t agree with the claim that you have to know the “right” people to succeed, since I had NO master sommelier recommendation letters and still got into the exams. However, what I did do was study hard, take any position (paid or otherwise) to gain experience, and work my ass off. It’s hard to break into the wine industry, and I got a plethora of rejection letters along the way. However, to blame the Court for the harassment of women in the wine industry and various other offenses listed, without so much as mentioning the disparities of giant wine corporations such as Constellation or other educational routes such as WSET or CWE, is both irresponsible and biased.
We felt it was important to give you a voice. Please check out our follow-up here. https://somm.us/opposing-viewpoints-from-the-sommelier-community/
I’m sorry but what do the disparities of giant wine corporations have to do with a Court which largely consists of older white men who are accepting money from climate science deniers and racists? You may be a female and a Democrat but your blind defense to protect your own pin is ridiculous. Are you telling me that you’re okay with having your pin as the men that put it on your chest are supporting the very causes that are further destroying the planet and marginalizing races at the same time? With all due respect your shiny pin blinds you from the truth.
There are some insanely irresponsible and weak arguments in this article. It may be one of the most poorly written ones I’ve seen so far. If I’m reading this right, you are somehow responsible for your employer’s political views? Also, does the author have evidence about sexual violence as it directly relates to the court? If so I would be interested to see that. But it doesn’t seem to be in the article
Sounds like you are a member of the CMSA. The Court’s status as a 501(c)(6) non-profit requires them to behave in a specific fashion.
Here’s the law:
“its activities should be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons.” 26 CFR § 1.501(c)(6)-1 – Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, and boards of trade.
As a trade organization, they are obligated to improve the working conditions of the trade, not individuals. Since they claim to be the defacto certification body for sommeliers, they bear responsibilities for the actions within that group. Can we know which one of the rapists was a CMSA member? No. Does the CMSA need to make a stand on violence against women in the sommelier field? Yes, absolutely fucking yes.
A master sommelier can work anywhere they want, so why does nearly every master sommelier who is a member of the board work for Republican-led organizations? People need to know the choices the board of directors has made. The fact that CMSA directly takes money from them goes to show that CMSA is a deeply politicized non-profit. and that is information people have a right to know.
I think G Osborne hasn’t taken a journalism class in their life. The author’s arguments are non-sequiturs and their basic misunderstanding of how non-profits work lead them to sensationalist conclusions. If you want to have a real conversation, please DM me.
Amen and thank you.
We felt it was important to give you a voice. Please check out our follow-up here. https://somm.us/opposing-viewpoints-from-the-sommelier-community/
There have been whispers about the CMS ever since I started working as a somm. If you don’t know the right people, you wont get your pin. Its about time they were taken down a notch.
Whispers are not facts. They are usually derive from individuals scorned over not passing some level of the exams. Perhaps before deciding to take down an organization over rumor and conjecture….take part in CMS with an open mind and see for yourself what is fact and fiction.
Dude, these are not whispers, these are rapes. Stop protecting monsters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/dining/drinks/court-of-master-sommeliers-sexual-harassment-wine.html
I’m so sick of woke culture and call bullshit on this entire article. This article single-handedly convinced me to go this route.