More lately, the play for promoters and commissions when it comes to bad decisions is to write it up as incompetence on the part of the judges. We saw judges in New Jersey, for example, suspended and required to take training in the wake of the Williams/Lara fight (as if).
And now, in the wake of the Bradley/Pacquiao decision, we have agreement among Arum and Schaefer, who otherwise can't agree on anything, that the decision was due to incompetence, not corruption.
So basically, we have Arum going on the offense in a situation when he should clearly be relegated by the press to defense, and we have Schaefer saying nothing commital whatsoever on the topic, except to be clear that it was not corruption (because if it were the logical conclusion would be that he too engages in such corruption).
Not to get off topic, but when the coverage looks to Arum and Schaefer for answers, there should be little surprise that time after time things like this happen, and time after time, the public is left wondering.
At any rate, place your vote as to whether you think this obviously bad decision was due to incompetence (as Arum and Shaefer and every other part of the establishment would have us believe) or to in my view the much more likely reason, corruption.