No doubt there are still people out there who believe that sport is played for honour, rather than money. It's a fair guess that they are now almost as rare as South Africans who admit to having voted for the Nats. The same old-fashioned view is found among some wine drinkers - who think of their preferred beverage as something artistic and artisanal, rather than commercial and industrial.

Wine, like sport, is highly competitive, and there are strategies ranging from the technological, through the more dubious, all the way to the indisputably criminal by which players in both fields edge their way ahead.

In an ideal world, the guidelines are clear. For example, Clayton Reabow, who won last year's Diner's Club Young Winemaker of the Year, only joined the cellar after the wine had been produced. It is therefore clear that he could never have made the wine (and a more honourable sponsor than Diners Club would have disqualified him as soon as this was discovered). But there are many less clear-cut cases. For example, when technological advancements (such as must concentrators and reverse osmosis) are used by Chateau Lafite Rothschild to make 'better' wine than it did in the 1970s, is this the same as a Callaway club in the hands of a modern day golfer?

Wine competition managers have had to become increasingly adept at anticipating the downright crooked, and managing the infinite range of grey areas which can be exploited in the ever more competitive environment of the wine business. The announcement of this year's Chenin Challenge winner had hardly been made before the Grape website's founder, Tim James, picked up a discrepancy between the wine's analysis - as published by WINE Magazine - and that on the cellar's website.

Close investigation has revealed that three different bottlings of the highest-ranked wine - the Kleine Zalze Vineyard Selection 2008 - had been produced. The winning wine came from the final batch (representing a mere 14% of the total vintage). Since all the other bottlings have evidently been sold, it appears that no one could seriously accuse Johan Joubert, the winemaker, of making a competition cuvee in the manner of the Wither Hills winery in New Zealand a few years ago. But given that the earliest of the three releases had about 60% less sugar than the last (and was over 0.5% lower in alcohol) it is surely misleading to sell all three bottlings under the identical label?

The practice of producing more than one bottling is hardly new - or even controversial - though it is more generally the case with very large commercial volumes. Kleine Zalze has offered a plausible enough explanation - but is no less culpable of showing a cavalier disregard for the palates of its customers.

As chairman of the Chenin Challenge judging panel, I'm not immune from the controversy, though our job was simply to pick out in a blind tasting what we judged were the best wines. We obviously think we discharged our duties competently enough. The overall winner has bagged numerous awards - suggesting that the best was kept for last. Is its success a result of the selection process, or was bottle age the crucial factor in its success? Incidentally, another (and in this case clearly differentiated) Kleine Zalze Chenin won the best value award. The Simonsig 2007 (which was also judged best value wine in South Africa by the 2008 Platter panel) won the unwooded category.

Sports administrators constantly need to design tests to identify new performance-enhancing drugs. Clearly those who manage wine competitions need to anticipate occurrences (intentional or otherwise) which might contaminate a result. For example, the 2011 Platter Guide, presently in its planning phase, will now seek details of separate bottlings. Clearly, as Bill Shankly said of football, wine is not just a matter of life and death - it's much more serious than that.

From Business Day, 27 January 2010