CSI: Cooperstown

So, last night during the Red Sox/Orioles game (I didn't see it, thankfully since the O's predictably blew it), O's announcer Gary Thorne cavalierly mentioned to color man Jim Palmer that he had a conversation with Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli a few years back. The topic? The infamous bloody sock of Curt Schilling. The meat? That Mirabelli told him that the blood was painted on as a PR stunt.

Mirabelli, of course, follows the first rule: Deny, deny, deny.

But you know what? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it were true. Schilling is a great character, but he's not exactly the most credible person around. What do they call him? Red Light? Something like that, to indicate that he goes running for the camera when he sees that red light come on.

Not to mention that Gary Thorne is a very well respected member of the media. He's not prone to hyperbole or making something up just to get a rise out of people.

So, the question is...was Thorne joking? Was Mirabelli joking with Thorne? If that's the case, why did he not say so, instead of denying that they even talked about it? If Thorne believed the story, why was he so cavalier about it? Does he think everybody thinks it was faked? And why did I say the question and then ask multiple questions?

People are already weighing on the subject. ESPNRadio's Mike and Mike say go test the sock, since it's at Cooperstown. People have chimed in and said that the sock on display still shows red, instead of brown, which dried blood usually turns after over 2 years.

The world may never know. Or perhaps not even care.

I know this. The Red Sox players are really laying in to Thorne over this, so if turns out to be either a massive misunderstanding, or that Thorne wasn't lying in the slightest, I hope they have the cajones to apologize. Because you know Thorne will if he's in the wrong.

SOCKGATE. DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN.