I'll take it for what it is worth. Very litte. Dibble just says whatever pops into his mind regardless of what he may have said previously.clenz wrote:Take this for what it's worth to you I guess but...
I was listening to sports talk radio tonight, like I do all day long, and Rob Dibble was on one of the shows talking about the latest roids stuff. He said the fact that the media is making this sound like it didn't start until the late 90's is one of the dumbest things ever. Dibble knows his **** mind you. He said that starting in the mid-to late 70's the juicing was starting. In fact he knows players asked trainers for advice, the trainers asked the owners and managers what to advice their players and the reply from them was "make sure they get the good stuff".
So really, no era since probably the early 70's has ever been clean. Dibble said that every team had at least 5-8 players on the team that were on roids, the difference between then and now is that back then they didn't know how to use them like they do now. He also said that roids won't help a player at all unless they are already good, otherwise it will just make them look roided out.
Moral of the story, baseball has been dirty since the 70's, not the 90's.
As I was reading your post, I was thinking about an article I read by Dibble some years back in which he largely professed a lack of overall knowledge about steroid use in baseball and that the statement that 50% of baseball players used steroids was just a "guess." I was actually able to find the story on line.
It's Time to Test for Steroids by Rob Dibble
The case made by the writers in "Game of Shadows" that steroid use exploded after players saw what Sosa and McGuire were doing in 1998 is pretty convincing and well documented. In my opinion, those journalists are much more credible than Dibble, a guy who is apparently saying different today than he did in 2002.
