The point of the article is that some of the most acknowledged and recognized "experts" in the field were inconsistent in the way they rated the exact same wines.
Also that they could easily be fooled by labels, and even by coloring - food coloring made a wine taste "drastically" different to them (when in fact it was just food coloring).
Now - they weren't complete foils - they just showed that it wasn't nearly the exact science most of them would want you to believe.
As far as the "tasting ritual" goes, I know how to do it and I do it, because it is expected when you have a sommelier - but I have never personally turned down a wine even when to my palate it was awful. I admit I do the "cork sniffing" fully for show.
But by the same token, I honestly do not believe myself to be enough of an expert to turn down a wine even if I hated it (and was paying for it) because it could be a $100 bottle that they then have to give to the staff.
I mean after all - can you really judge a red wine that has not had time to breath anyway?
I am also not a complete rube - I can tell when I really like a wine, and it usually ends up not being cheap. But I still stand by what I said (and the article also points out) that labels often mean very little - all that really counts is the vintage - and even that can vary. It really boils down to the actual wine in the bottle. That is where these experts get tripped up, they tend to get tricked by other things (brand, label, color, etc).