I think that most people thought Curt Schilling’s “bloody sock” incident was behind. They thought wrong. One of the main story lines from the 2004 playoffs and World Series is rearing its head again, and this time in an ugly way.

Orioles broadcaster Gary Thorne said on air that he was told that the blood on the sock wasn’t really blood. Thorne said Doug Mirabelli had told him that the substance was actually paint, a claim Mirabelli vehemently denies. I don’t think the fact that the sock was bloody really had a whole lot to do with Schilling’s performance during the playoffs. Bleeding or not, Schilling did have stitches in his ankle to keep his tendon steady so he could pitch. I haven’t had that happen to me, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it would hurt like hell. Also, who the hell would think to possibly put paint on a sock to make it look like blood? “Hey here’s an idea, let’s make Curt look more manly by painting fake blood on his sock.” I’m sorry, that just isn’t going to happen.

I know that a lot of people are sick of this story. It was a gutsy performance by Schilling but it can get repetitive seeing that same blood spot over and over. And of course Thorne had to go and rehash the entire story. The sock is in the hall of fame, and besides the clip that we see every time Schilling pitches, we should just leave this story behind us.