Nevada attorney general: No crime in Bradley win over Pacquiao

The Nevada state attorney general announced in a letter to Top Rank CEO Bob Arum that "there do not appear to be any facts or evidence to indicate that a criminal violation occurred" in Timothy Bradley's June 9 (June 10, PHL time) split-decision victory over Filipino ring icon Manny Pacquiao, Yahoo Sports' Kevin Iole reported. Arum, who promotes both Pacquiao and Bradley, had demanded an investigation into the fight, in response to public outcry that Pacquiao had been robbed of the win. Ring-side judges scored the fight 115-113, 115-113, 113-115 in favor of Bradley, but a WBO review consisting of a panel of five internationally-accredited judges later handed Pacquiao a unanimous victory and recommended a rematch between the two fighters. But while Bradley's manager, Cameron Dunkin, is satisfied with the result of the investigation, saying, "I'm not surprised at all," Arum is still unsatisfied with the result of the inquiry, saying that the investigation, done by Dale Liebherr, the attorney general's chief of investigations, and authorized by Nevada state attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto, was not thorough enough, pointing out that Liebherr had not interviewed the three ring-side judges. "I have no reaction to it," Arum told Iole. "They spent a lot of time interviewing the referee [Robert Byrd] who had nothing to do with judging the fight and I didn't see any interviews with the three judges who scored it. Wouldn't you do that if you were looking into it? "Anyone who reads this letter is going to say, 'Hey wait a second. The three people who, in effect, caused this, why weren't they interviewed?' Obviously it would have been far more thorough had they interviewed the judges." But Cortez Masto argued that the judges were sufficiently qualified to officiate the match, and that there was nothing suspicious about the way through which they had been assigned to the bout. "Displeasure with the subjective decisions of sporting officials is not a sufficient basis for this office to initiate a criminal investigation," Cortez Masto wrote in her letter. "While there may be strong disagreement with the decision, the exercise of professional judgment by individuals officiating at a sporting event is not by itself a criminal violation." For his part, Dunkin was hopeful that the result of the investigation would cool the tremendous heat fans have been giving his charge, Bradley. "I'm happy they cleared it up, and for all the paranoid people who don't understand and who don't know that they're talking about, now they can calm down," Dunkin said. Bradley had earlier said in a radio interview that he felt he was "the most hated fighter on the planet." Two days after the fight, Arum had told Iole that he wanted an investigation to see if someone had rigged the outcome, saying, "I want to investigate whether there was any undue influence, whether the [Nevada Athletic Commission] gave any particular instruction and how they came to this conclusion. "If this was a subjective view that each of [the judges] honestly held, OK. I would still disagree, but then we're off the hook in terms of there being no conspiracy. But there needs to be an independent investigation because it strains credulity that an event everybody saw as one-sided on way all three judges saw it as close. It strains credulity." Arum had also said that he was discouraging Pacquiao from invoking his rematch clause against Bradley, until the results of the investigation. It was not immediately known if the promoter's unhappiness with the manner in which it was conducted would still prevent it from pushing through, in addition to perception that a Pacquiao-Bradley rematch would not be financially lucrative. While the Nevada attorney general and the WBO have both conducted their investigation, there is no word yet from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, after executive director Keith Kizer backtracked and announced that the organization would conduct a review. "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," said Kizer. "So again, what you're 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." Pacquiao is scheduled to fight again on November 10, but the Filipino congressman did not reveal whom he was leaning towards, be it Bradley, Juan Manuel Marquez, or Miguel Cotto, when he had dinner recently with Arum. - AMD, GMA News