Gary Thorne: Bloody Sock was a fake

[AAApittsburgh]

Schilling is an attention-whore, but I doubt even he would paint his freakin' sock to make it look bloody.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the blood was fake when I first saw it. I would assume he'd be wearing a bandage after his ankle was stitched up, which means that the blood would have to seep all the way through the bandage after a popped stitch. I just don't see it.

[ConstableRabbit]

Schilling is an attention-whore, but I doubt even he would paint his freakin' sock to make it look bloody.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the blood was fake when I first saw it. I would assume he'd be wearing a bandage after his ankle was stitched up, which means that the blood would have to seep all the way through the bandage after a popped stitch. I just don't see it.

 

I was thinking the same thing. That would've been a lot of blood for it to soak through and make that large a spot.

[GlassCow]

Am I the only one that could really care less about a bloody sock???

 

Nope. I'm certain there are several of us who don't.

[ToupeeOnFire]

I wonder if Gary Thorne is a "truther".

[Post Count Padder]

I blew out my left knee in martial arts class (two meniscus tears and a torn ACL). Played a double-header for our softball team two days later and went 8/10 with 2 HR's and 3 2B's with a knee that was "wobbly" and swollen larger than the 12 inch ball we were using.

 

PHHHH! Schilling is a wuss.

 

:shock:

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I'm not sure who's a bigger idiot. Gary Thorne or the guy that wrote this story.

 

 

You're saying that the journalist is out of line for pointing out that Morgan didn't explicitly deny the rumor? How so?

 

Once we decide to put the matter 'on trial,' we need to look at the evidence while making as few assumptions or interpretive leaps as possible. Although the 'common sense' way to read the statment is certainly to understand Morgan as denying Thorne's claim (see the first sentence of Morgan's 'testimony'), if one is working only with common sense one would not be seriously considering Thorne's accusation in the first place.

 

I think we can agree, though, that it is very unlikely that Morgan was trying to avoid telling the truth yet also avoid lying...if Morgan thought that lying was morally wrong, he almost certainly would not have found it morally acceptable to participate in a fake-blood deception in the first place. If Morgan doesn't mind lying but is afraid of getting caught, he could have answered this journalist's question much more evasively. If Morgan knew that Thorne's claim were true, and wanted to protect Schilling et al, it's hard to see why he would have chosen the strategy he did.

 

However, we don't hear the exact question Morgan was asked, and we don't know whether the journalist asked follow-up questions. If this journalist tried to push Morgan on the point but got nowhere, then maybe we should be suspicious. But if that happened, why wasn't it reported? So probably the journalist was too stupid to ask the obvious follow-up question. The journalist may indeed be stupid, but the point you quoted him making isn't. We don't have enough information to come to a strong conclusion. If you thought that we should just go for the straightforward approach, why on earth would you bother to examine the evidence for a conspiracy theory in the first place? [/i]

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Woah, a Glasscow sighting.

[chuckywang]

Am I the only one that could really care less about a bloody sock???

 

No, you're not. You're not the only one who doesn't give two craps about the Red Sox either.

[fromthestretch]

An update:

 

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

[biittner77]

Schilling is an attention-whore, but I doubt even he would paint his freakin' sock to make it look bloody.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the blood was fake when I first saw it. I would assume he'd be wearing a bandage after his ankle was stitched up, which means that the blood would have to seep all the way through the bandage after a popped stitch. I just don't see it.

 

I was thinking the same thing. That would've been a lot of blood for it to soak through and make that large a spot.

 

So what you're saying is that starting a playoff game on national TV was not enough attention for Schilling. After all, they almost never show the starting pitcher during a baseball game. So he comes up with this cunning plan, I'll draw attention to myself by making it look like my ankle is bleeding because, after all, during most telecasts, the camera does at least 500 close ups of the starting pitcher's ankle.

 

If any of that is true credit, Schilling for being a genius. A hearty tip of the cap for exposing the absurdity of Fox's baseball coverage. I prefer to think that this is just sour grapes on the part of Yankee fans.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think it means Thorne should stick to hockey.

[Soul]

I think it means Thorne should stick to hockey.

 

Considering Hockey is now little more than professional lacrosse on ice, I'd say bad baseball publicity is still a better way to go. At least his name is still out there, and known.

[USSoccer]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

[Rusch33]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

 

Exactly what I was wondering.

[CubColtPacer]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

 

But we know Schilling was hurt. The amazing thing was that he pitched at all. The question is whether blood actually soaked onto the sock, not whether or not it was a great performance following an impromptu surgery. And all evidence suggests it was real anyway.

[CubColtPacer]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

 

But we know Schilling was hurt. The amazing thing was that he pitched at all. The question is whether blood actually soaked onto the sock, not whether or not it was a great performance following an impromptu surgery. And all evidence suggests it was real anyway.

 

Oh, I would agree-there is absolutely no basis for the claims. It's ridiculous to even think that it could be paint-people are going into game 6 of the ALCS, and they are going to be worrying about painting a guy's sock? If the very small chance happened and it was true though, I'd feel quite deceived and angry-but thankfully, I know that's not going to be the case.

 

It was an absolutely amazing performance-the visual evidence though just seemed to make it a little more memorable than for example T.O.'s miraculous comeback and great game in the Super Bowl (of course, the fact that the Red Sox went on to win the series helps a whole lot in that as well).

[FergieJ31]

Aren't personalities part of the whole intrigue of baseball? If not, then I can see the "what's the big deal" argument.

 

We all know Schill is an attention hound, but he would become a gross caricature of himself if he did fake it. As I said yesterday, it should have been painfully obvious even before Thorne fessed up that he didn't fake it.

[USSoccer]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

 

And again, so what if it become just another random playoff game during an unprecetended comback down 3-0? Does there have to be some stupid legend attached to it to lend his performance more gravity?

 

Or, better, why should a Chicago Cubs message board, or anyone else outside Boston or New York care about the lastest salvo in the idiotic hype war that is Boston vs New York? If he faked it, wow, big deal, he's a drama queen, and Boston still wins the game and series. If he didn't, this writer's an idiot and Boston still won the game and series.

 

This is a big steaming pile of who gives a crap.

[CubColtPacer]

Why are people talking about a nonevent from 2004?

 

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

 

And again, so what if it become just another random playoff game during an unprecetended comback down 3-0? Does there have to be some stupid legend attached to it to lend his performance more gravity?

 

Or, better, why should a Chicago Cubs message board, or anyone else outside Boston or New York care about the lastest salvo in the idiotic hype war that is Boston vs New York? If he faked it, wow, big deal, he's a drama queen, and Boston still wins the game and series. If he didn't, this writer's an idiot and Boston still won the game and series.

 

This is a big steaming pile of who gives a crap.

 

A lot of people love sports stories, and the best story is always a person overcoming the odds to perform. Sometimes that is a team that is not very big or talented but finds a way to win (this is not as much in pro sports, but more in high school and college-pretty much every team on the pro level is seen as talented). Sometimes it is the individual overcoming odds to win, and part of that is dealing with injury.

 

Examples of teams (most of these have been seen in movies)

Milan High school (Hoosiers)

1980 U.S. Olympic team

N.C. State 1983 basketball

 

Examples of players

Willis Reed coming on to the court

Kirk Gibson home run

Michael Jordan flu game

Schilling's performance

etc.

 

There are so many games, so many winners every year. Most of them are unremarkable. There were in fact 2 better games in that Red Sox-Yankees series, but nobody remembers those. It's all about the story-the one that grabs your attention and captivates your emotion. Maybe it doesn't do that for everybody, but this is a national story because games like that do that for a lot of people, and to hear now that our emotions might have been played with for the last few years would make me upset if I actually believed that the charges had any validity.

[ConstableRabbit]

Schilling is an attention-whore, but I doubt even he would paint his freakin' sock to make it look bloody.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the blood was fake when I first saw it. I would assume he'd be wearing a bandage after his ankle was stitched up, which means that the blood would have to seep all the way through the bandage after a popped stitch. I just don't see it.

 

I was thinking the same thing. That would've been a lot of blood for it to soak through and make that large a spot.

 

So what you're saying is that starting a playoff game on national TV was not enough attention for Schilling. After all, they almost never show the starting pitcher during a baseball game. So he comes up with this cunning plan, I'll draw attention to myself by making it look like my ankle is bleeding because, after all, during most telecasts, the camera does at least 500 close ups of the starting pitcher's ankle.

 

If any of that is true credit, Schilling for being a genius. A hearty tip of the cap for exposing the absurdity of Fox's baseball coverage. I prefer to think that this is just sour grapes on the part of Yankee fans.

 

Well I wasn't explicitly saying that, I was just saying that I wouldn't be surprised it was fake because it seemed like it would be an uncanny amount of blood for it to soak through a bandage and sock.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Schilling threatens to kill people, or something

[tkenm356]

It's a sock.

 

I repeat: It's a sock.

 

People are making amazing comeback stories, amazing plays, and amazing runs at records.........

 

And yet people are still throwing a fuss over, I repeat: a sock.

 

I hate the media