• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Red Sox "red sock" conspiracy

VespaGuy

Graduate Poster
VespaGuy
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
1,034
For those of you unfamiliar with the "Bloody sock" story...

In 2004 the Boston Red Sox finally won the World Series. Although there were many subplots to the season, one of the most popular images was that of Curt Schilling on the mound in Game 2, only days after having ankle surgery. At several points in the game, the cameras zoomed in to show the blood soaking through his sock as the stiches twisted and pulled with every pitch. It was a great subplot to the series, painting Shilling as a warrior who fought through the pain to help his team acheive something that had escaped them for decades.

During last night's game (Sox/Orioles), Gary Thorne, a play-by-play announcer, decided to put forth the rumor that the "bloody sock" was, in fact, faked.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/26/gary-thorne-claims-schilling-bloody-sock-was-a-hoax/
 
ESPN radio were constantly going on about this this morning.

Unfortunately, they couldn't grasp the fact that most people (including most baseball fans) JUST DON'T CARE! Someone even sent them an email that said, WE DON'T CARE! Their response? Are you kidding? No, not kidding.

Apparently this is a big issue in Boston. For a Twins fan in the midwest? No.
 
pgwenthold said:
ESPN radio were constantly going on about this this morning.

Unfortunately, they couldn't grasp the fact that most people (including most baseball fans) JUST DON'T CARE! Someone even sent them an email that said, WE DON'T CARE! Their response? Are you kidding? No, not kidding.

Apparently this is a big issue in Boston. For a Twins fan in the midwest? No.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a New Englander (and a Sox/Pats fan), so obviously it grabbed my attention when I heard it. Is it a big deal around here? Not really. Local sports radio has been talking about it a bit, but mostly in a "what the hell?" kind of way. It's such a bizare claim to make. It's just plain silly. But I thought it fit in with the whole ridiculousness of other conspiracy theories, so I figured I'd post it here.

What I'm still trying to figure out is why someone would think that someone would actually hoax this? What possible reasoning would there be to fake a bloodstain?
 
It was certainly one of the more memorable moments in recent baseball history, so I can't imagine a true baseball fan saying, "Who cares?" However, reading the transcript, it seems more likely that Thorn has something against Schilling personally.

BTW, the source for the story is this blog. I noticed he had a link on the side to "my 9-11 Blog"; he's an infrequent poster at 9-11 Blogger. I'd guess he's also "Red Sock" at DU.

So maybe this is a "false-sock" attack?
 
VespaGuy said:
For those of you unfamiliar with the "Bloody sock" story...

In 2004 the Boston Red Sox finally won the World Series. Although there were many subplots to the season, one of the most popular images was that of Curt Schilling on the mound in Game 2, only days after having ankle surgery. At several points in the game, the cameras zoomed in to show the blood soaking through his sock as the stiches twisted and pulled with every pitch. It was a great subplot to the series, painting Shilling as a warrior who fought through the pain to help his team acheive something that had escaped them for decades.

During last night's game (Sox/Orioles), Gary Thorne, a play-by-play announcer, decided to put forth the rumor that the "bloody sock" was, in fact, faked.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/26/gary-thorne-claims-schilling-bloody-sock-was-a-hoax/
Click to expand...


Lifelong Red Sox fan here. Although Schilling did indeed pitch in Game 2 of the 2004 WS, the real Bloody Sox game was #6 in the ALCS series against the NY Yankees, the one where the Yanks famously endured The Biggest Choke of All Time, unprecedently blowing a seemingly insurmountable 3-0 series lead before humiliatingly losing in seven games.

Sorry, gotta give me a moment here -- the memory is still wonderful...

Where was I? Oh yeah, the Bloody Sock. In Game 6, Schilling was scheduled to pitch in Yankee Stadium. But no one thought he could do it, thanks to a damaged Achilles' tendon. But Boston doctors pulled off a novel new procedure (performed only once, on a cadaver) that used staples to hold Schilling's tendon in place. During the game, the blood stain on his sock became obvious, and the cameras kept zeroing in on it. Whether or not it was real blood or just a prop is anyone's guess. (I personally think it was real, but wouldn't put it past Schilling to put a red smudge there as a psych-op.) In any case, the Yanks couldn't touch Schilling that night. And in game 7 they were so spooked after blowing the 3-0 lead that they got demolished, losing badly to a no-name pitcher throwing on 2 days' rest.

So the real Bloody Sock game was in the ALCS, not the Series. I can't recall whether there was blood on Schilling's sock in the WS, but if so it probably didn't make much difference. (The Sox easily swept the Cards in four straight.) And even if Schlling faked the sock in the WS, it doesn't mean that the stain in the ALCS wasn't real.

Trust me, people from Boston don't care about this. NY fans, however, seem to be all over it, as if proving it was fake would detract from the Sox accomplishment somehow. Doesn't add up to much compared to a real controversy like steroids, though.
 
Last edited:
the ALCS that year was incredible. So was the 2003. Hell so was the NLCS in 2003. Great baseball.
 
Stellafane said:
Lifelong Red Sox fan here. Although Schilling did indeed pitch in Game 2 of the 2004 WS, the real Bloody Sox game was #6 in the ALCS series against the NY Yankees, the one where the Yanks famously endured The Biggest Choke of All Time, unprecedently blowing a seemingly insurmountable 3-0 series lead before humiliatingly losing in seven games.

Sorry, gotta give me a moment here -- the memory is still wonderful...

Where was I? Oh yeah, the Bloody Sock. In Game 6, Schilling was scheduled to pitch in Yankee Stadium. But no one thought he could do it, thanks to a damaged Achilles' tendon. But Boston doctors pulled off a novel new procedure (performed only once, on a cadaver) that used staples to hold Schilling's tendon in place. During the game, the blood stain on his sock became obvious, and the cameras kept zeroing in on it. Whether or not it was real blood or just a prop is anyone's guess. (I personally think it was real, but wouldn't put it past Schilling to put a red smudge there as a psych-op.) In any case, the Yanks couldn't touch Schilling that night. And in game 7 they were so spooked after blowing the 3-0 lead that they got demolished, losing badly to a no-name pitcher throwing on 2 days' rest.

So the real Bloody Sock game was in the ALCS, not the Series. I can't recall whether there was blood on Schilling's sock in the WS, but if so it probably didn't make much difference. (The Sox easily swept the Cards in four straight.) And even if Schlling faked the sock in the WS, it doesn't mean that the stain in the ALCS wasn't real.

Trust me, people from Boston don't care about this. NY fans, however, seem to be all over it, as if proving it was fake would detract from the Sox accomplishment somehow. Doesn't add up to much compared to a real controversy like steroids, though.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct about the "bloody sock" game. It was the ALCS, not the WS. (I'm going to go hang my head in shame now).

And you are also correct that Boston fans couldn't care less about the current sock 'conspiracy'. The sock itself is a reminder of the Red Sox World Series win, and their unbelievable sweep of the Yankees. It's so much a part of that banner year, that the following years, at New England Patriots games, they'd actually show a close-up picture of the bloody sock on the big screen to get the crowd to make noise (it worked real well).
 
Stellafane said:
So the real Bloody Sock game was in the ALCS, not the Series. I can't recall whether there was blood on Schilling's sock in the WS, but if so it probably didn't make much difference. (The Sox easily swept the Cards in four straight.) And even if Schlling faked the sock in the WS, it doesn't mean that the stain in the ALCS wasn't real.
Click to expand...

There was blood on his sock in WS Game 2; the sock was part of an exhibit at the Hall of Fame.
 
Couple of things:

According to this ESPN article, the sock in question is the sock from game 6 of the ALCS. The sock sent to Cooperstown was the sock from Game 2 of the WS. But, the Hall of Fame website says it's the sock from Game 6. If he wore it in game 2 of the WS, and didn't wash it, that's disgusting.

On a side note, I had tickets to Game 5 of that particular series against the Cardinals. :mad:
 
They was also a total lunar eclipse during the series - figure this had
something to do with breaking the Boston losing spell (since 1918)....
 
This one got nipped in the bud already

Basically Gary Thorne accused a Red Sox player of being a disinfo shill.
"It was painted," Thorne said. "Doug Mirabelli confessed up to it after. It was all for PR." Thorne backed off Thursday after talking to Mirabelli before the Red Sox played the Orioles. Thorne said Mirabelli had been joking.

What made him change his story so fast??
 
What's really silly here is the whole sock story is only well known BECAUSE THEY WON.

Had they not won, I doubt it would even be a big issue.

And can you really seriously suggest a bloody sock had anything to do with the win?

-Gumboot
 
I'm withholding judgement on this matter until I see Rosie's official stance in her blog.
 
Time to suggest that the really suspicious thing is the other sock?
 
gumboot said:
What's really silly here is the whole sock story is only well known BECAUSE THEY WON.

Had they not won, I doubt it would even be a big issue.

And can you really seriously suggest a bloody sock had anything to do with the win?
Click to expand...

You're not grasping the significance of the bloody sock. It's not that the sock really had anything to do with winning. I doubt that many believe it had any significant psychological effect. It's all about painting Curt Schilling as a near-mythic, larger-than-life hero who had the almost superhuman will to pitch very well even though his ankle hurt.

The reason this is a story at all is that many people (mostly outside of Boston) believe that Schilling, while a very fine pitcher, is also a big-mouthed, self-aggrandizing fathead who might not be above a stunt like putting ketchup on his sock.

Not that I think anything like that, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom