Come on, that Jim Palmer quote is just lazy journalism by whoever wrote that article. Brady's huge year is definitely hard to explain, but to just assume that he was using steroids is irresponsible unless there is some kind of further evidence. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.
Obviously, the huge aberration makes it suspicious. Brady hit 50 homers in 1996. The most he hit before that was 21, the most after was 24. But if steroids helped him so much, why would he stop using them the following year (when he only hit 18)?
And Brady's fluke isn't without precedent. Davey Johnson hit 43 homers in 1973. The most he ever hit before or after was 18. Was he on steroids?