Schilling Sock Scandal?

A "prominent" Baltimore O's play-by-play broadcaster Gary Thorne (also NHL announcer) said on the air (during last nights broadcast) that he had been told by Red Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli that the substance on Schilling's sock was paint, not blood.

He was of course referring to game 6 of the 2004 playoffs vs the Yanks. Here's the exchange:

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

So matter of fact isn't it? Here's Mirabelli's response after the game:

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

So who is the donkey here? We have a hard time believing Mirabelli would say that even if it were true. Others are saying that Thorne would never just make something up. Why hasn't this "news" ever been reported before? Is it reasonable to believe that a 9 inch suture started to bleed from an area that moves with every pitch? Yup. Sounds like a big load of crap and Thorne should feel some pain for making such an unproven statement.

-

All that aside, it does not and never will take away from what Schilling did to get ready for that game. Is there another athlete on the planet that would risk that kind of surgery? Doubtful. Throw in the size of the stage and the performance, and you couldn't have written a better script. It's one of the best sports stories of all time. It eclipses Carlton Fisk & Kirk Gibson's homers put together. He was gutsy and heroic. It's a moment that will never be forgotten or unappreciated.

-

The point is it doesn't matter about the sock. It's all about what's behind it. For all of you naysayers, call CSI...