Someone screwed the pooch. Time to ‘fess up.



The latest issue of All-in Magazine has an article written by Antonio Esfandiari - an article that Antonio claims he did not write and went to print without his permission. At face value, this bodes ill for the poker media. And I’ve already gone on record for giving them crap about it. But the longer I think about it, the more something just doesn’t jive.

Let’s look at some of the facts to date:

- Antonio claims he neither wrote nor reviewed the article in All-in Magazine.
- Antonio has a regular column in rival Bluff Magazine.
- All-in Magazine has had four different editors to date.
- Bluff Magazine has identified John Vorhaus as the ghostwriter of the All-in article.
- John Vorhaus is a well-respected poker journalist.
- Ghostwriting is common practice in many industries because celebrity stories sell, and many times celebrities have limited writing ability.
- John Vorhaus has neither confirmed nor denied he was the ghostwriter.
- Ghostwriters are usually under contractual obligation not to disclose their relationship with the byline author.
- The article in question bears an uncanny resemblance to work with Antonio’s byline.


Some questions relative to the facts:

- Antonio took some heat from forum posters relative to the article. Did he also catch some heat from Bluff for his alleged contribution to the competition?
- Why would Antonio risk being slapped with a possible libel suit if there was documentation supporting his involvement with the All-in article?
- How did Bluff Magazine know John Vorhaus was the ghostwriter? Did they know because Vorhaus was the ghostwriter for Antonio’s Bluff articles?
- Poker players have contracted publicists and agents. Wouldn’t it make sense that they would contract with well-reputed industry writers to ghostwrite for them?
- When a magazine has had as many editors as issues, how standard can their editorial and article vetting process be?
- Would someone of Vorhaus’ reputation risk it to knowingly participate in a sham for a one-off article?
- Would someone of Vorhaus’ reputation be so careless to ghostwrite an article without contacting the byline author?
- If Vorhaus is being screwed over, either by All-in’s failure to clear the article or Antonio on some level, why isn’t he defending his reputation?
- Is the frenetic need/greed for poker content leading to shortcuts and miscommunications relative to content providers, writers, and players?


Some plausible (but at this point unsupported and not mutually exclusive) theories:

1) Antonio is telling the technical truth but maybe not the whole truth. He knew about a pending article for All-in with his byline, but he caught heat from Bluff about it when it went to print. He figured his best strategy was to sin by omission. He in fact may not have written the article, may not have reviewed the article, and may not have known it was going to print in the latest issue. But that doesn’t negate the possibility that he may have agreed to supply an article for All-in and set the wheels in motion for its production and publication.

2) All-in Magazine is sloppy and/or deceitful. They contacted Vorhaus to ghostwrite an article for Antonio, using Antonio’s existing writing as a basis and input from associate publisher, Kasey Thompson, relative to a his night of club hopping with Antonio. When it came time to print, there was no process in place to clear or verify that they had cleared the article and it got missed…or they just blew it off. Either way they screwed Antonio and Vorhaus…not to mention the reputation of the poker media, at large.

3) John Vorhaus is under a contractual ghostwriting agreement with Antonio. This has been a longstanding agreement whereby John has provided all or most of Antonio’s written content, including his regular Bluff columns. John was under the assumption that Antonio had authorized the All-in article. Potentially a miscommunication occurred whereby Antonio forwarded an inquiry by All-in to John, setting the wheels in motion, or John forwarded an inquiry from All-in to Antonio and thought he had a “go.” And one can’t completely dismiss the possibility that Antonio gave explicit authorization or permission (maybe under the terms of their agreement?), something he later regretted (or didn't realize). And it is also possible that All-in told John they had Antonio’s permission, when in fact they did not. The fact that John may not have reviewed the actual content with Antonio could have been standard practice, borne out by their existing and historical relationship or his belief that this was being taken care of by the magazine. If that is how they routinely conducted business, it is a practice that represents risk to both the ghostwriter and byline author. John’s failure to comment may be, in part, because he is contractual obligated not to disclose the nature his relationship with Antonio.


So this is all speculative and there is a lot I don’t know about this situation. But here’s what I do know: someone screwed the pooch and it’s time for someone to ‘fess up.

In the interest of full disclosure: I have a regular column in Bluff Magazine. While I do not believe my affiliation has influenced my perception of the above situation, it should be disclosed as it does represent a potential bias.