Bob Arum Asking for Investigation into Pacquiao-Bradley Decision Is Pointless
Bob Arum has reportedly asked Nevada's state attorney general's office to launch an investigation into Timothy Bradley's shocking split-decision victory over Manny Pacquiao that left the world scratching it's collective head, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
According to the Review-Journal's report, Top Rank has already sent a letter to Attorney General General Catherine Cortez Masto asking her to investigate the two judges, Duane Ford and CJ Ross, that had Bradley winning the fight 115-113 and not the third, Jerry Roth, even though he only had Pacquiao winning by the same margin.
Arum told the R-J:
"I want to believe there was no impropriety. That's why I want the attorney general to investigate so we can be sure.
Sure, we all want to believe there was nothing going on, but even if there was some kind of fix involved with the decision, an investigation will most likely yield no results, wasting everyone's time.
Arum may be requesting an investigation to cover himself and Top Rank, as both Pacquiao and Bradley are part of Top Rank. It could look suspicious to some people that both fighters are from Top Rank, since a rematch between the two fighters just means more money for everyone involved.
Even if there was something found that points to some dirty business possibly going on, it will be tough to overturn the results, unless some kind of bombshell evidence is uncovered, which is highly unlikely.
Any way you slice it, this proposed investigation is pointless, and we have seen just-as-controversial decision's with "Pacman" before against Juan Manuel Marquez, where Pacquiao could have easily lost two of the three fights. No investigations were ever requested then.
Expect no results to be found from a possible investigation. The only thing anyone will get out of it is keeping the controversy in the news for however long a potential investigation will take, possibly long enough to keep the hype alive until the two fighters might meet again in November.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?