![]() |
|||||||
|
By Grant F, Section Journals
Enough with the sock already. Please
Is Gary Thorne really that torn up about no more hockey on ESPN that he needs to make up stories about a certain pitcher in a certain playoff series in the 2004 baseball season. That certain pitcher being of course Curt Schilling and the story is one that concerns his bloody sock from Game 6 of the ALCS. The dispute if you have not heard already is that the blood on the sock was not blood at all, but paint. Thorne remarked in a broadcast of an O's/Sox game that Sox pitcher Doug Mirabelli told Thorne that the famed "blood" was in fact paint and a PR stunt concucted by Schill being the drama king that he is. It is well known that Schill is a huge self promoter and it was his manager in Philadelphia, Jim Fregosi, that dubbed him "Red Light Curt" seeing as how he attracts to the red light on a camera like a moth in a darkroom. But you're telling me that under the immense pressure he was under to preform in that fabled Game 6 and the sheer magnitude of it, he figured to himself right before taking the mound, "Hmm, maybe I should dab some paint on my sock so that I'll look even more legendary". Call Schill all the things you want, but unconfident is not one. Knowing what Schill is all about, there was no doubt in his mind that he would win that game. Using his sock as a canvas would only be a bail out move had he lost that game, pointing out that it were the sutures that cost the Sox the comeback and not him. And that is something that Curt Schilling does not do, past the blame. The preformance was dramatic and was fit for a script for theaters, but blood was not a special effect. Its a ridiculous notion that it was paint. The sock now resides in Cooperstown. Is it possible that Schilling would send a painted sock to the Hall of Fame? Not likely.
It was blood.
|
Related Links |
||||||