There is a controversy brewing over whether or not Curt Schilling's "bloody" sock from the 2004 American League Championship Series, is actually blood, or was it painted red for gory effects.

Considering that Schilling currently has a nine-inch scar from the surgical attachement of his tendon, and that the incision was less than a couple of days old when he set out to pitch, and that's it's not uncommon for stitches to suffer from post-operative bleeding--after all, the reason you need stitches in the first place is because your skin has been ripped apart, and the reason that people bleed is ripped apart skin, then I'm going to guess that the blood is real.

But wait, my opinion doesn't count?

Why not? Because I'm not a professional athlete, nor a broadcaster?

No, my opinion doesn't count because we don't need opinions on the matter. You see, we actually have the sock. If we want to know whether it's blood or not, it would take a forensic scientist literally ten minutes to find out.

Just remove it from the display case in Cooperstown, take a sample, and put it immediately back in. That's all.

Any article that further discusses this controversy without mentioning the easy way to settle the debate is an affront to journalism.