What's new

Schilling's "bloody" sock from 2004

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ramp

Muckdog
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
38,437
Reaction score
0
BALTIMORE -- The story of Curt Schilling's famous bloody socks from the 2004 playoffs is turning into a bloody mess after a prominent broadcaster claimed one of Schilling's teammates acknowledged the blood wasn't real.

Schilling repeated the feat in Game 2 of the World Series and the bloody sock from that game was sent to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., after the Red Sox won their first series title since 1918.

A Hall of Fame official confirmed to ESPN's Cold Pizza on Thursday that the sock in the Hall is from the World Series. The Hall of Fame's Web site, however, says that the Hall has the bloody sock worn by Schilling during Game 6 of the ALCS.

Fast-forward to Wednesday night's Mid-Atlantic Sports Network's telecast of Red Sox-Orioles.

In the bottom of the fifth, Orioles play-by-play man Gary Thorne said on the air that he had been told by Red Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli that the substance was paint, not blood.

"The great story we were talking about the other night was that famous red stocking that he wore when they finally won, the blood on his stocking," Thorne told broadcast partner and Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer.

"Nah," Thorne said. "It was painted. Doug Mirabelli confessed up to it after. It was all for PR. Two-ball, two-strike count."

Two innings later, according to media reports, Thorne explained Mirabelli had told him the story "a couple of years ago."

"Go ask him [Mirabelli]," Thorne said.

After the game, Mirabelli flatly and angrily denied Thorne's story.

"What? Are you kidding me? He's [expletive] lying. A straight lie," Mirabelli said, according to The Boston Globe. "I never said that. I know it was blood. Everybody knows it was blood."

"It gets stupider," Schilling added, according to the newspaper. "I got the 9-inch scar for you. You can see it. ... There are some bad people in your line of work, man."

Red Sox manager Terry Francona also questioned Thorne's version of the story.

"What Schill did that night on the sports field was one of the most incredible feats I ever witnessed," Francona said, according to The Globe. "[Thorne's remarks] go so far past disappointing. Disrespectful to Schill, to his vocation. I'm stunned.

"I am just floored. Schill takes his share of shots, and this one is so far below the belt that I'm embarrassed and I wish somebody would have had the good conscience to ask me," Francona said, according to the newspaper.

Man... I have no clue why Gary Thorne would make something like this up... And I don't believe he did

would be interesting if they did some studies on that sock
 

FreshFish

Muckdog
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
8,720
Reaction score
0
what a bloody mess. I doubt Schilling did something like this, but stranger things has happened.
 

Ramp

Muckdog
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
38,437
Reaction score
0
what a bloody mess. I doubt Schilling did something like this, but stranger things has happened.
I agree....

I just don't know why a respected sportscaster like Gary Thorne would make this up either
 

Passion

Muckdog
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
21,939
Reaction score
0
This is so retarded. Thorne is a hack (probably one of the worst known pbp guys going, imo) and obviously lied for God knows what reason.

Edit: Actually, I shouldn't even call it lying.

I didn't hear the audio of what he said but how often do sports announcers and color guys talk casually in the booth? I believe that is what happened here and Thorne just said something during the course of the game with little thought to what the 'consequences' would be.

But the bottom line is...

We won.

Next.
 

TarHeel324

Muckdog
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
3,476
Reaction score
0
This is so retarded. Thorne is a hack (probably one of the worst known pbp guys going, imo) and obviously lied for God knows what reason.

But the bottom line is...

We won.

Next.

Actually, I shouldn't even call it lying.

I didn't hear the audio of what he said but how often do sports announcers and color guys talk casually in the booth? I believe that is what happened here and Thorne just said something during the course of the game with little thought to what the 'consequences' would be.
Honestly, I could see the blood being placed on the sock to furthur get into the Yankees heads. If he did do that, kudos to him for trying to gain a mental advantage. If he didnt, then even more props to him for playing thru his ankle bleeding.

Either way, youre right. This is a non-issue. Sox win, Yanks lose, move on.
 

Passion

Muckdog
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
21,939
Reaction score
0
To your point, Heel, I don't think the bloody sock would have been getting in the Yanks head. He was horrid in his first start that series and I don't think Curt had the foresight to predict he would have a legendary performance so he needed to boost that even more by 'painting' his sock red. But I get what you mean.

Those who think this:



could not have bled through a sock either a. has never had stitches or b. has their tin foil hat on too tight.

Theo had the best response to this and pretty much solidifying his 'BAMF' status forever in my book with:

"I'm the GM of the team, not Jerry Springer. I couldn't give two [expletives] about what was on his sock, I care that we won the game. The rest, and Gary Thorne, is just noise."

:notworthy
 

Jimmy42Jack0

Muckdog
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
4,914
Reaction score
0
i would find the blood on the sock to be much more believeable if it was anyone but curt schilling...the guy is an attention whore and this would further that cause, that said...who cares anymore? that was going on 3 years ago...gary thorne, i think you are awesome, but you are beating a dead horse here
 

TSwift25

Muckdog
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
0
I'll say this much, when i saw the sock in cooperstown over a year later, it was still bright red, usually the oxidization turns it more brown.
 

Passion

Muckdog
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
21,939
Reaction score
0
I'll say this much, when i saw the sock in cooperstown over a year later, it was still bright red, usually the oxidization turns it more brown.
I saw quite a few pictures taken by people more recently and it definitely has browned.
 

Mets_bs

Muckdog
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
0
I fail to see why this merits all this talk. It's a sock, it had no bearing on the outcome of the game outside of firing up his teammates. It's authenticity is meaningless unless you are the poor idiot who paid a million bucks for it. Thorne is stupid for bringing up a 2 and a half year old story and the Sox are idiots for getting so worked up about it (demanding a retraction, are you kidding me?).
 

Ramp

Muckdog
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
38,437
Reaction score
0
on the replay of the game today, Thorne's comments were edited out
 

Passion

Muckdog
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
21,939
Reaction score
0
Thorne is stupid for bringing up a 2 and a half year old story and the Sox are idiots for getting so worked up about it (demanding a retraction, are you kidding me?).
So you'd be for announcers not being held accountable for what they say on air and have no problem with them being able to make things up as they see fit?

What this stems from is dumb, but the accountability needs to be there for the supposed professionals.

I don't think the Sox are getting 'so worked up' as Epstein and Lucchino said their .02 and dismissed it. a retraction of more or less slander about 2 people is not ridiculous.
 

Ralph

Muckdog
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
0
I dont know whether or not this is true but Thorne basically threw Mirabelli under the bus.
 

The Fan

Muckdog
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
0
Big deal. LOL @ how worked up some people are getting over this.
 

Passion

Muckdog
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
21,939
Reaction score
0
Thorne apologized in the pre-game apparently per my brother the O's fan.

Dead issue now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom