That was sooooooo 2004 ... why are we going there again?

We'll just go ahead and call this the stupidest story that won't go away.

Curt Schilling's "bloody" sock from the 2004 postseason is once again a topic of conversation thanks to this off-hand remark by broadcaster Gary Thorne during last night's Red Sox broadcast:

"The great story we were talking about the other night was that famous red stocking that he wore when they finally won, the blood on his stocking," Thorne told broadcast partner and Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer.

"Nah," Thorne said. "It was painted. Doug Mirabelli confessed up to it after. It was all for PR. Two-ball, two-strike count."

Two innings later, according to media reports, Thorne explained Mirabelli had told him the story "a couple of years ago."

"Go ask him [Mirabelli]," Thorne said.

Of course, Mirabelli denied ever having such a conversation -- even using a four-letter word, just for emphasis -- and Schilling and his manager each displayed the appropriate amount of righteous indignation at the prospect that the great self-promoter Curt Schilling would ever even consider doing such a thing.

But rather than try to get to the bottom of whether Schilling actually was bleeding on that night two-and-a-half years ago, I think I've got a better question:

WHY IS THIS STILL A STORY?

Can't we just call up the guys at CSI or something to test the silly thing for blood so this story will go away once and for all? We're not talking about the Shroud of Turin, here; we're talking about a dang sock. The silly thing is in the Hall of Fame. Besides, if he was bleeding, good for him for pitching through the pain of ankle surgery. If he wasn't bleeding, well, I'm sure he was in no less pain.

Oh, and when I put "bloody" in quotation marks above, it wasn't meant to imply that I agree with Thorne. Really, it wasn't. Far be it from me to "hit below the belt," as Terry Francona put it. I don't need to -- that's why we've got Dan Shaughnessy.