Was Curt Schilling's sock REALLY bloody??

[Dodgerfan1]

I have been watching the Mike and Mike Show on ESPN2, and the subject came up about Schilling's sock during the 2004 playoffs. Gary Thorn has made the accusation that the blood on Curt's shoe was actually paint. Evidently, he overheard a player say that, and now that player is backing off that statement, although Thorn sticks by his story.

Anybody else heard of this??

[Dodgerfan1]

The player who allegedly said it was paint was Doug Mirabelli, and that it was all done for PR. Mirabelli now denies it and calls Thorn a liar.

[vptpt]

I saw that this morning too. They were calling for DNA tests on the sock, since it's in the Hall Of Fame. They don't need a DNA test, do they? Just a test to see if it's blood or paint, and I think that's a simple enough test. I don't know though, I don't watch CSI. :noidea

[Captain Cold Nose]

I saw that this morning too. They were calling for DNA tests on the sock, since it's in the Hall Of Fame. They don't need a DNA test, do they? Just a test to see if it's blood or paint, and I think that's a simple enough test. I don't know though, I don't watch CSI. :noidea

What kind of test after a couple years? Taste?

I don't think anyone owes the people calling for the test, Thorn or whomever, anything. Blood or paint, baseball is full of embellished stories that don't threaten anyone but those who have no right to be threatened.

[Dodgerfan1]

Here is the article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2849747

[Dodgerfan1]

It's kind of an interesting quandry. It's almost pure gossip. Why would Gary Thorne make something like that up? He's been a respected broadcaster for many years. If he's not making it up, then Mirabelli said it. If Mirabelli said it, why did he? Does that mean it's true? Or is Mirabelli is making it up? If so, why? Was he just joking? Did Thorne take something Mirabelli said out of context?

I don't see how it could be true that it was paint, the main point of interest to me is whether Thorne is telling the truth or Mirabelli is. Neither would seem to have any reason to lie, but I'm sure more will come out about 'Sockgate'.

[Westlake]

I don't get how paint would look like that. That's what makes this 100% untrue to me. If Thorne said that Mirabelli confessed to Curt putting fake blood, than mayyyybe... but that looked like blood, not paint.


Amidst a recent report in GQ magazine that a former teammate of Curt Schilling believes Schilling used fake blood on his sock during the 2004 ALCS and World Series, Larry Lucchino made an interesting offer to the anonymous player.
“If this gentleman would, first of all, make himself known,” Lucchino began, “the Boston Red Sox would be more than happy to fly him to Boston and personally detach his tendon sheath and then suture it back in place and then take a needle and shoot a numbing agent into it. If there is no trace of blood on his sock, we’ll gladly admit that Curt went through all that trouble, and in the midst of pitching in two of the biggest games of his life, took the time to put a few drops of fake blood on his sock just to look more dramatic.”
When the invitation was relayed to the anonymous Arizona player, complete with an explanation of the excruciatingly painful procedure of suturing a tendon sheath in place and the accompanying needle, he quickly mumbled, “Uh…no thanks.”
“We kind of figured that,” Lucchino smiled when notified of the response. "But we praise his courage nonetheless."

[VTSoxFan]

Having actually seen the sock in question at Cooperstown, I can say that the stain sure didn't look like paint to me. It's dark reddish-brown in the center, blackish-brown around the edges. Of course, I didn't have a can of Luminol to spray on it (and would probably still be in jail if I had tried!), but it sure looked like dried blood to me.

[VTSoxFan]

What kind of test after a couple years? Taste?

I don't think anyone owes the people calling for the test, Thorn or whomever, anything. Blood or paint, baseball is full of embellished stories that don't threaten anyone but those who have no right to be threatened.

A simple phenolpthaline swab would do the trick. Don't you watch CSI? :p

[Captain Cold Nose]

A simple phenolpthaline swab would do the trick. Don't you watch CSI? :p

What's that, some new independent minor league?

[VTSoxFan]

Yeah, with great teams: The Ballistics, The Prints, The Hair&Fibers... :D

[strosfan]

I heard he was eating a hotdog with ALOT of ketchup!!!:dance

"The sock" got way too much attention back then to be bringing it back around now!!!:yawn:

Playing through a little blood means you're a tough athlete - not a Superhero!

[Captain Cold Nose]

I heard he was eating a hotdog with ALOT of ketchup!!!:dance

"The sock" got way too much attention back then to be bringing it back around now!!!:yawn:

Playing through a little blood means you're a tough athlete - not a Superhero!

Ewwwww!

I don't think anyone's portraying Schilling as such, or, outside of RSN, ever were. Why did Thorne bring it up now? Well, his team was playing against Boston, but you'd think something like that would have been brought up once the topic was breached, not a few days after they were first talking about it.

[Dirt Dog]

Anybody else heard of this??

In the Red Sox forum, I brought this up last night during the Sox-Orioles game when I heard Thornes' comments.

2004 ALCS Game 6 @ Yankee Stadium
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041024/041024_schilling_hmed_4p.hmedium.jpg

2004 WS Game 2 @ Fenway
http://www.athleticreporter.com/images/stories/1135_8786.jpg http://images.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/_photos/2005-02-11-schilling-sock.jpg

There was actually more blood on the sock during the ALCS game. Thorne, step up to the mike and tell your story, The Nation is waiting.

[Old Sweater]

LOL, the case of the Bloody Sock.

Things must be slow at "Scandals are Us" headquarters, if this is the best they can come up with right now. Don't think it even can get Schilling suspended.

Sorta refreshing in a way though that they aren't going for a players throat for once.

[DoubleX]

I posted this in the Sox forum too - I think I heard some Hall of Fame rep on Cold Pizza this morning say that the Hall only has the WS sock and not he ALCS sock, but I wasn't really paying attention so I could be wrong.

Personally, I think the strong chances are that the blood is real, but I don't think it bled during the game. By the time the game started, the blood looked dry and the stain didn't change size. So my guess is that it bled when he got his pre-game treatment and continued when he put his sock on. My guess is also that Schilling, being the media-savvy guy he is, knew that he could use the sock to his advantage. The sock was a focal point of Fox's coverage from before the game even started.

My guess is that Schilling made a point of bringing notice to it because bringing attention to it really helps him. On one hand, if he gets rocked like he did in his first ALCS outing, he could always use his ankle as an excuse and point to the bloody sock as graphic evidence to how injured he was and he would be thought of as a soldier trying his best to help the team despite injury. So in this situation, he's not blamed for getting hit hard and actually looks good for trying to soldier on despite the apparent injury. On the other hand, if he has a good outing, then the sock helps make him look like a hero, and that's what happened.

[Dirt Dog]

I think I heard some Hall of Fame rep on Cold Pizza this morning say that the Hall only has the WS sock and not he ALCS sock, but I wasn't really paying attention so I could be wrong.

Here's the WS bloody sock in Copperstown. Looks like that paint has turned a little darker now.

http://z.about.com/d/gonewengland/1/0/G/R/baseballhall8.jpg

Schill said the ALCS bloody sock was thrown into the dirty laundry after the game.

[TonyK]

If you have an injury aren't you going to try and conceal it from your opponent? I don't think Schilling wanted 3 or 4 Yankees bunting to see how well he could move on the ankle.

So why would he spray paint his sock and advertise he's injured? That's like a hitter who has been hit by a pitch near his eye rubbing coal around it to emphasize it.

One thought I had was Mirabelli could have been joking about his teammate and the reporter didn't realize it.

[DoubleX]

If you have an injury aren't you going to try and conceal it from your opponent? I don't think Schilling wanted 3 or 4 Yankees bunting to see how well he could move on the ankle.

Nah, Torre isn't that imaginative to actually implement a strategy premised on strengths and weaknesses. He has a blueprint and he stubbornly sticks to it.

[TonyK]

Nah, Torre isn't that imaginative to actually implement a strategy premised on strengths and weaknesses. He has a blueprint and he stubbornly sticks to it.

That's standard procedure in our little league. If the pitcher is a weak fielder and gets rattled easily we keep on bunting.

I don't think the Yankees tried to bunt even once off of him.

[natsnsoxfan]

I posted this in the Sox forum too - I think I heard some Hall of Fame rep on Cold Pizza this morning say that the Hall only has the WS sock and not he ALCS sock, but I wasn't really paying attention so I could be wrong.

Personally, I think the strong chances are that the blood is real, but I don't think it bled during the game. By the time the game started, the blood looked dry and the stain didn't change size. So my guess is that it bled when he got his pre-game treatment and continued when he put his sock on. My guess is also that Schilling, being the media-savvy guy he is, knew that he could use the sock to his advantage. The sock was a focal point of Fox's coverage from before the game even started.

My guess is that Schilling made a point of bringing notice to it because bringing attention to it really helps him. On one hand, if he gets rocked like he did in his first ALCS outing, he could always use his ankle as an excuse and point to the bloody sock as graphic evidence to how injured he was and he would be thought of as a soldier trying his best to help the team despite injury. So in this situation, he's not blamed for getting hit hard and actually looks good for trying to soldier on despite the apparent injury. On the other hand, if he has a good outing, then the sock helps make him look like a hero, and that's what happened.

I really doubt that he was thinking anything like that, i doubt he had time to be thinking like that.

It was obviously blood, why would he paint the sock? that would be dumb.

[Williamsburg2599]

As I have said before, anyone who saw Curt on Celeberty Jeopardy knows that he is not that smart to put blood on his sock.;)

[Kline's Ghost]

I've seen the sock in person, at cooperstown, and paint doesnt dry that way...it was definanlty blood, I dont even know why it's such a big deal really....

[Francoeurstein]

I guess its not much of a big deal. I mean a sock with some blood on it isn't gonna cause a contreversy. Or atleast I hope:shhh: :( :hp :yawn:

[Dirt Dog]

Here's the update. Let's bury the dead horse.

Thorne says he was wrong about sock
Orioles announcer had claimed Schilling had paint on foot
By Spencer Fordin / MLB.com

BALTIMORE -- Every journalist's nightmare was played out Thursday for broadcaster Gary Thorne, who awoke to find out that he had become the story he had been trying to cover. Thorne, who calls games for the Mid Atlantic Sports Network, found himself in a controversy over comments he made about Curt Schilling during Wednesday's game between the Orioles and Red Sox.

Thorne said on the air that Boston catcher Doug Mirabelli had told him that the blood on Schilling's sock during the 2004 American League Championship Series was fake, more a publicity stunt than badge of courage. One day later -- after another chat with Mirabelli -- Thorne attempted to stifle the furor by admitting that he was wrong.

"He said one thing, and I heard something else," said Thorne of the earlier conversation, which happened a year or two ago. "I reported what I heard and what I honestly felt was said. Having talked with him today, there's no doubt in my mind that's not what he said [and] that's not what he meant.

"He explained why in the context of the sarcasm and the jabbing that goes on in the clubhouse, [and] that I understand. I took it as something serious, and it wasn't."

The story had such legs because it dealt with an anecdote that instantly became a legend. Schilling's right sock had red spots on it during Game 6 of the ALCS, and the substance was assumed to be blood. Schilling had to undergo a minor procedure to pitch in that game, and his performance helped vault the Red Sox to the World Series.

His sock showed similar markings in Game 2 of the World Series, and that garment is now on display at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. If the substance on the sock had actually been paint -- or anything else -- it would've significantly diluted one of the biggest stories surrounding Boston's first World Series championship since 1918.

"I'm disappointed it happened because I have to come here and answer questions about it," said Boston manager Terry Francona. "It was actually one of the most miraculous performances I've ever been around. It's disappointing because there's going to probably be a faction of people who want to believe it. And it's not true."

"Everybody knows that was on that team that that Curt Schilling sock had blood on it," Mirabelli said Thursday. "There's never been a doubt in any of the players' minds. I think it's unfortunate that some of the naysayers out there try to discredit what Curt Schilling did those in those weeks that he pitched with that ankle.

"I think that's the biggest story here -- that he went out there for a team and helped us win games at way less than 100 percent [with] the surgery and the stitches."

Kevin Millar, a current Oriole and former Red Sox, tried to settle the question once and for all. When reporters approached him Thursday, he quickly blurted out, "It was blood," before he was asked a question. Millar went on to say that he was surprised it came up so far after the fact, but not that it became a major news item in Boston.

"No, I'm not surprised. It's normal [in Boston]," he said. "I don't know exactly what was said because I was playing the game, but it's quite silly to be a serious statement. You don't want to use the word 'heroic' with everything going on in our country right now, but it was 100 percent blood. What Schilling did for us that night was awesome.

"We witnessed Dr. Morgan and our training staff in the training room doing the surgery."

Similar testimonies came in from other former teammates. Doug Mientkiewicz, the Yankees' first baseman and another member of Boston's title-winning team, said that he had also witnessed the surgery in question.

"The fact that you sit there and watch a guy get his ankle cut open, it's pretty gross," he said. "You go into the trainer's room and you're used to seeing dislocated fingers, dislocated shoulders. You see a pretty nice bruise once in a while. You don't see an Exacto knife going to a human being's skin, but all of a sudden, there it is."

So where did the confusion come in? Thorne met with Mirabelli on Thursday to try to hash out exactly where the misunderstanding took place, and they both seemed satisfied after their face-to-face encounter.

"As he was walking away, [Thorne] asked me, 'How about the bloody sock?' " said Mirabelli, recounting the initial incident. "And this was a year later, after the World Series. And he said that I said, 'Yeah, we got a lot of publicity out of that.' And that was it. That was all that he could recall me saying. And he said that he just assumed that's what I meant, that it was all a publicity stunt. By no means was that what I meant."

"I didn't say something I didn't believe. I would never do that," added Thorne. "I feel bad the whole thing happened because I don't want to disparage him or Schilling or Terry [Francona] or anybody else. I wasn't looking for a story. I didn't want something to come out of this. But when it came today, I was flabbergasted by it.

"That why the most important thing for me today was talking to Doug. I wanted a one-on-one with him so he knew what I said, why I said it [and] what our conversation had been before."

Mirabelli also said that Thorne seemed upset about the snafu and was willing to do what he could to clear it up.

"He wasn't trying to throw anybody under the bus," Mirabelli said. "In his mind, that's what he thought I meant. It's hard to get that meaning out of those words he told me, but that's what he went with."

At the end of the day, the No. 1 thing that came across was the respect Schilling's teammates have for him.

"He likes attention, but he doesn't like that much attention," Mientkiewicz said. "He did it for him, he did it for us, [and] he did it for the city. I know what it was. It wasn't nail polish."

"He's one of the players that's asked about the most, once you've played with him," said Millar. "Truly, and behind the scenes, Curt Schilling is a tremendous teammate. He's probably the one pitcher I'd take in any big-game situation, and he's probably the best big-game pitcher of our generation. The bottom line and the question was, 'Is it blood or paint?' It was 100 percent blood. I don't know how this became an issue three years later. Only in [Red] Sox Nation."

[digglahhh]

It doesn't change what he did. It is not as you are completely healed if you are not bleeding from the ankle. Curt Schilling turned in a great performance with a lot of drama around it. How much of the drama (if any at all) was manipulated by him is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

[bryanac625]

I saw that this morning too. They were calling for DNA tests on the sock, since it's in the Hall Of Fame. They don't need a DNA test, do they? Just a test to see if it's blood or paint, and I think that's a simple enough test. I don't know though, I don't watch CSI. :noidea

i understand you can pour hydrogen peroxide on a stain and if it heats up, it is a bloodstain.

[Erik Bedard]

Why does anybody care? He pitched while he was hurt, did great, and now everybody'll remember him for it. Like digglahhh said, does it really matter if there was blood on the sock or not? He was in pain either way, all that would come out of it if the sock was bloody is another relic.

[Charger567]

i understand you can pour hydrogen peroxide on a stain and if it heats up, it is a bloodstain.

I am not so sure they would sign off on that..

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Too much drama, my opinion. A gutty performance over-hyped because we could actually see some real blood. There were probably a good number of gutty performances by a number of players in big game situations in the history of the game but some how the sight of some blood makes it more dramatic.

We just love a good story, it's called human nature.

[plask_stirlac]

Why is this coming up now and not in January, if ever?

Hey, you guys think Little should've pulled Pedro sooner? Timlin or Williamson? :rolleyes:

[digglahhh]

Why is this coming up now and not in January, if ever?

Hey, you guys think Little should've pulled Pedro sooner? Timlin or Williamson? :rolleyes:

I've also been hearing rumors that Babe Ruth didn't really call his shot. Is this something that anybody has looked into?...:crazy

[Dodgerfan1]

This actually becomes a good thing for Schilling. His gritty, determined performance was slowly fading into past history and this brought America's attention back to it, and ended up well for him.

Hearing the actual statement made by Thorne during the broadcast, it is obvious that he wasn't trying to get a 'scoop' or create a huge story out of it. He didn't proclaim it as a news flash or say it in a grandstanding manner. He just sort of mentioned it, almost in passing, while he was announcing the game.

[Dirt Dog]

Schill issued this challenge...

“Someone gave me a great idea to end this once and for all. No one will ever need to bring it up again. I’ll wager 1 million dollars to the charity of anyones choice, versus the same amount to ALS. If the blood on the sock is fake, I’ll donate a million dollars to that person's charity, if not they donate that amount to ALS. Any takers?”

[four tool]

And now Curt is offering a $1 million bet for charity for a sock analysis. If it's blood, the other one pays, if it isn't, Curt pays.

YAY SCHILLING!

[west coast orange and black]

erik bedard: Why does anybody care?

schilling pitched while hurt. that's fact. schilling showed what he's made of by taking the hill.

but if what was believed to be blood was actually not blood, then the whole thing was purposely orchestrated for what purpose?
schilling's rep takes a tumble and he'd forevermore be known as a trickster.

[natsnsoxfan]

Ok, it seems pretty much unanimous that it was blood on the sock, myself included.

But, does it really even matter whether or not it was blood? We all know what he was going through on the mound those two nights, in the ALCS and WS, the blood only enhances the legacy of the games. He put out one of the guttiest pitching performances in the playoffs ever, whether there was blood or not is irrelevant, whats important to the story is the fact that he was pitching with a sutured tendon.

[west coast orange and black]

natsnsoxfan: does it really even matter whether or not it was blood? .... the blood only enhances the legacy of the games.

agreed that it was blood, nnsf.
but the blood seeped out on its own, while the cameras zoomed in.
if it was a red self-administered substitute, then your description of added "legitimacy" does not hold.

i think that if had been discovered right away that it was not blood, schilling and the red sox would hafta answer lots of questions about why the fakery.

as a red sox fan, would you have felt duped?

[Westlake]

I'm a Red Sox fan, and for me it's gotten to the point where I just don't care anymore.

[natsnsoxfan]

natsnsoxfan: does it really even matter whether or not it was blood? .... the blood only enhances the legacy of the games.

agreed that it was blood, nnsf.
but the blood seeped out on its own, while the cameras zoomed in.
if it was a red self-administered substitute, then your description of added "legitimacy" does not hold.

i think that if had been discovered right away that it was not blood, schilling and the red sox would hafta answer lots of questions about why the fakery.

as a red sox fan, would you have felt duped?

probably. i would be wondering more why they did it though than caring that it was not blood.