Well we could joke around or have a real conversation. You left out '94.
Maybe it's just sour grapes. Sure. Could be.
But if, IF, steroids were a thing on a team for a time...
you'd have coaches either clueless or turning their backs or endorsing them
you'd have some players hesitant and dip their toe in, some avoid them, and others dive in and have a program and feel like they need them (think that LB in "The Program")
you'd have team leaders one year that weren't about it, and team leaders other years that questioned your love of the team if you didn't partake
All of those are the strains of possibilities if steroids were a thing. There'd be an ebb and flow. Maybe it did peak in '94 and '95, maybe not. Maybe there's a reason Warren Sapp was gasping for air in the 4th quarter and Zack Wiegert wasn't.
But if it's silly to suggest steroids were a thing without solid evidence, it'd be just as silly to suggest those linemen had clean piss. Would you bet a dollar on it? $10,000?
But I'm probably wrong. And it's not just a UNL OL thing. Tony Mandarich. Steve Emtman. Genetic freaks who were dedicated enough to take in chemicals which enabled them to be even more dedicated. What I hate about the steroids discussion is the immediate dark cloud that hangs over it. With this, with Bonds, with whoever. Hey, if you love your team and you're dying to be the best you can be for your team and your body only allows you to work out 3 hours per day, but you find something that allows you to workout 5 hours per day, for your team, for you to contribute, and you do it...are you bad? Wrong? If a shot in your butt lets 4th quarters feel like 1st quarters or game 150 feel like game 15 and your success helps your team...your dedication almost compels you to do it.
So I'm not calling into question anyone's determination or dedication or loyalty here. No one's work ethic is up in the air.