Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mystery: Shilling & The Bloody Sock: Was It Blood or Red Paint? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

rayfsc07

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
: April 27, 2007, 06:20:56 PM

"I'll wager one million dollars to the charity of anyone's 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?"

In addition:

"So Gary Thorne says that Doug told him the blood was fake. Which even when he's called out he can't admit he lied," Schilling wrote on his blog. "Doug never told Gary Thorne anything. Gary Thorne overheard something and then misreported what he overheard. Not only did he misreport it, he misinterpreted what he misreported."


Now we'll see who's lying.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#1 : April 26, 2007, 05:02:08 PM

How 'bout that, Mr Fung!!!?

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spjim0426,0,3054920.column?coll=ny-main-bigpix

Was that blood or red paint?

Sox's backup catcher allegedly says Schilling's sock from '04 was staged
April 26, 2007, 3:17 PM EDT

More than two years after the fact we still don't truly know whether that really was blood on the sock of Boston's pitcher / publicist Curt Schilling during the 2004 postseason. Last night, however, we received an interesting second-hand admission that it was staged with - get this - red paint.

Red Sox officials are incensed this morning it's even a question, and Yankees fans surely have to be bothered by this, as well. Every time that darn Schilling sock is mentioned, it reminds Yankee fans of perhaps their worst week in franchise history, when they became the first baseball team to blow a 3-0 lead in a best-of-seven series, to the Red Sox, no less.

The latest sock controversy came about during the Orioles' telecast of their game against the Red Sox last night when Gary Thorne said on the air that the bloodied sock was in fact red paint. Thorne, the former Mets broadcaster who also does work for ESPN, even outed Red Sox backup catcher Doug Mirabelli as his source.

So why would Thorne lie about this, especially on the air? When the Boston Globe's Red Sox beat writer Gordon Edes approached him in between innings, Thorne stood by what he had said, telling the reporter, "Go ask him."

That makes us believe Mirabelli did tell Thorne the blood on the sock was in fact paint. But was he saying it in jest? Messing around with Thorne, thinking the broadcaster knew it was a joke? Or perhaps he was serious?

Mirabelli vehemently denied that to Edes, saying, "What? Are you kidding me? He's --- lying. A straight lie. I never said that. I know it was blood. Everybody knows it was blood … I honestly don't know who Gary Thorne is."

But, seriously, why would Thorne lie? Makes no sense. Of course this story is more believable because of the man involved. Schilling has always loved attention. He calls into a Boston sports talk radio station, has his own blog and has been known to post comments on both Red Sox and Yankee fan message boards.

Schilling, manager Terry Francona and GM Theo Epstein all seemed incensed by what they deemed absolutely false accusations, according to this morning's Globe story. And Red Sox owner John Henry, wh o is almost always willing to offer comments through e-mail, was noticeably mum today. "I have no information on this subject," he said.

Dr. Bill Morgan, who was the Red Sox's team physician at the time, released this statement this afternoon:

"It's hard to fathom where a statement like this would come from. Obviously, we put sutures in Curt Schilling's ankle right before he went out to pitch in a professional-level baseball game. Sutures will pull with movement, and we completely expected a certain amount of blood to ooze from the wound. Socks are like sponges, and even a small amount of blood can soak a sock."

What I found interesting about that statement is that Morgan did not address whether the sock did in fact have blood on it, only saying he expected there to be blood. There's a difference.

Maybe former Red Sox players Johnny Damon and Mike Myers, who both crossed over to the dark side and signed with the Yankees before the 2006 season, will speak publicly about this later this afternoon. Yankees first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz also was on that Red Sox team.

But probably the only way to put an end to this may just be to test the sock, as silly as that may sound. There were two (allegedly) bloody socks, from Game 6 of the ALCS and Game 2 of the World Series, but only one sock exists today.

Because Game 6 of the ALCS played at Yankee Stadium, the bloodied sock was handled afterward by Yankee Stadium visiting clubhouse attendants. They have no recollection of what happened to it, so they believe it was tossed away into the garbage, where surely many Yankee fans believe it belongs.

But the bloodied sock from World Series Game 2 is still on display at baseball's Hall of Fame, according to its Web site. So then maybe it's time to take a day off from drug testing and do some sock testing. Because if it is paint, as Thorne insists Mirabelli said, wouldn't it be fun to see Schilling explain that?

Alas, there's no plan to test the sock, according to Jeff Idelson, spokesman for the Hall of Fame.

"We've never had a doubt in our mind that the sock he has on it has blood on it," he said. "Three years later the sock being on exhibit in our museum, the red splotches have turned brown, which is what happens to blood."

Oh, and by the way, Schilling and the Red Sox visit the Bronx for three games beginning tomorrow night.

Good timing, eh?

Email: jim.baumbach@newsday.com



Guest
#2 : April 26, 2007, 05:05:16 PM

Knowing Schilling (and being as arrogant as he is) I'd say paint.

http://finishmekurt.blogspot.com/2007/04/so-it-wasnt-blood.html

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
#3 : April 26, 2007, 05:51:49 PM

If it's paint, it'll stay red. If it's blood, it will eventually turn brown-ish. How hard can it be to figure that out?


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#4 : April 26, 2007, 06:06:12 PM

It's simple if you have both socks...

because Game 6 of the ALCS played at Yankee Stadium, the bloodied sock was handled afterward by Yankee Stadium visiting clubhouse attendants. They have no recollection of what happened to it, so they believe it was tossed away into the garbage, where surely many Yankee fans believe it belongs.



Guest
#5 : April 26, 2007, 06:17:56 PM

A "paint expert" called the Jim Rome show today and said it would take a very long time to get the paint consistency to blood red

SeedOfChucky33

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5273
Offline
#6 : April 26, 2007, 06:22:34 PM

The guy who made the accusation has even come out and said he was wrong and mistook Mirabelli. This shouldn't even be a discussion.

I've also seen a picture of the sock (a recent one) and it's all dried and brown now.

When you talk about what the college football experience is all about, that's it. Auburn is the epitome.
--Bud Poliquin, Syracuse Post-Standard
[/b]

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#7 : April 26, 2007, 06:26:05 PM

How did you see a photo of the ALCS sock when it doesn't exist?

For the record, I could care less if it was blood or paint. The Yanks lost
4 in a row to the RS. I'm stil happy.

Gary Thorne backed off his claim?

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#8 : April 26, 2007, 06:36:59 PM

]
How did you see a photo of the ALCS sock when it doesn't exist?

For the record, I could care less if it was blood or paint. The Yanks lost
4 in a row to the RS. I'm stil happy.

Gary Thorne backed off his claim?



That's the World Series game 2 sock.  Why would he put paint on the one from the ALCS but have real blood on this one?  It doesn't make sense.  This is a reporter who just wanted his name in a paper other than his own.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#9 : April 26, 2007, 06:45:43 PM

Do you know who Thorne is and his background? If so, you wouldn't even suggest that.

That's not the ALCS sock (as you know) and I am not saying that the ALCS sock had paint
on it. But when Seed makes a statement that he has seen a photo of the sock in question,
I have to wonder if he read the article throughly.

Probably blood on both socks. But the story is fun to me.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#10 : April 26, 2007, 06:53:27 PM

Not the first time this charge has been leveled...

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=196918&srvc=sports

The charge that Schilling faked the bloody sock has been made before, including in GQ magazine, which cited
an anonymous Red Sox player as its source.

* * * * *

End of Story, I guess...

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

Thorne said in a statement released Thursday afternoon that he misunderstood his conversation with Mirabelli.

"After speaking with Doug this afternoon, it is apparent that what he intended to say to me and what I inferred from that conversation were honestly different.

"In deference to Doug, I certainly accept his position. Doug and I have clarified our misunderstanding, and we feel that there is nothing more to add to this matter."

MrFreakinMiyagi

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6464
Offline
#11 : April 26, 2007, 07:00:24 PM

It was E.T.'s urine

Dolorus Jason on a ban bet with me over the BCS Championship: \"You have your bet. I ain\'t scurred.\"- 12/8 \"Youre being banned from your own stupidity. Enjoy.\"-12/8 \"Prepare for your ban .\" -12/9 \"Miyagi gonna be banned.\"-12/9 \"Best bet I ever made ...\"-12/9 \"Miyagi mad , gettin banned.\"-12/9\"You mIght need a break from the board. Our bet should help you do just that.\"-12/10 11:38 AM
 \"The bet is off now.\"12/10 1:24 PM

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#12 : April 26, 2007, 07:08:29 PM

Not the first time this charge has been leveled...

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=196918&srvc=sports

The charge that Schilling faked the bloody sock has been made before, including in GQ magazine, which cited
an anonymous Red Sox player as its source.

* * * * *

End of Story, I guess...

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

Thorne said in a statement released Thursday afternoon that he misunderstood his conversation with Mirabelli.

"After speaking with Doug this afternoon, it is apparent that what he intended to say to me and what I inferred from that conversation were honestly different.

"In deference to Doug, I certainly accept his position. Doug and I have clarified our misunderstanding, and we feel that there is nothing more to add to this matter."

I would have to say otherwise.  How can you misunderstand something like that?  This guy still has some questions to answer.  As for the "If I knew Thorne's background I wouldn't suggest this," this incident is now in his background so I will definitely suggest it.  Lots of poeple have had respectable careers before they went and did something stupid. 



Guest
#13 : April 26, 2007, 07:10:55 PM

Schilling is an egomaniac, I wouldn't be shocked if he painted his sock to up his legend. Mention his name, what do people think of? The bloody sock.

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#14 : April 26, 2007, 07:14:28 PM

Schilling is an egomaniac, I wouldn't be shocked if he painted his sock to up his legend. Mention his name, what do people think of? The bloody sock.

Yes he's an egomaniac, but it is clearly blood.  All evidence points to it being blood, and absolutely none points to it being paint.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mystery: Shilling & The Bloody Sock: Was It Blood or Red Paint? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools