Bob Arum On Pac-Bradley Investigation: 'Public Has The Right To Know What Happened'

Bob Arum said that the controversial Pacquiao vs Bradley bout should undergo an investigation to "restore fans' confidence in boxing."

Bob Arum during the post-fight press conference (Youtube)

Arum formally filed a request with the Nevada State Attorney General (AG) for an investigation of the boxing fight between Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao and undefeated American Timothy Bradley held last Saturday.

The Top Rank Promotions chief executive is asking for a "full and complete inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the scoring" of the boxers World Boxing Organization (WBO) welterweight title match which ended in a shocking split decision favoring Bradley.

"The public has a right to know what happened. The fighters have a right to know," Arum said in a statement. "The only way to restore fans' confidence in boxing is by letting an independent body investigate every detail of the fight, no matter how big or small."

Judge Jerry Roth (115-113) awarded the fight to Pacquiao while C.J. Ross (115-113) and Duane Ford (115-113) gave it to Bradley.

The boxing promoter had earlier lambasted the judges, calling them the three blind mice and saying the decision was a “death knell” for boxing.

"I don't know. I mean, I know these people, these judges. I cannot believe they were in on some bad conspiracy, but I can't otherwise explain this result," Arum said.

Meanwhile, Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) Executive Director Keith Kizer said he will be reviewing the tape of the bout. He said he will be asking an explanation from the three judges on how they came up with their scoring.

"What I'm interested in seeing is where the rounds were close, and why one judge went this way and the other two went the other way. What was the difference in A) how close it was in their minds, and B) what was the difference in that round that they gave that round to Pacquiao or they gave that round to Bradley. So again, what your looking for is A) a good explanation and B) very similar if not the exact same criteria that the judges are applying to what they see and what they hear," said Kizer.