Agree with most of what you said.
Bonds Is a good example. Say when he was naturally he was a 90 out of 100 as a baseball player. he took juice, now he was a 96 out of 100. Was it due to the AAS making him stronger? Probably a little bit. It also probably allowed him to recover better. I'd also bet when he started take AAS he started training more serious, eating better, etc. Whoever introduced him to AAS I'd bet also had him doing better things diet and nutrition wise as well and he probably trained better.
But he went from a 90/100 to a 96/lets say.
Now lets take BJ surhoff ( a skinny player for the orioles). Say he was a 70/100, he could have taken juice and been a 75 or 77/100, but on juice he was still far inferior to bonds before bonds ever juiced.
If we take a random segment of 1000 men. We then take the top 5 bottom genetics and the top 5 best genetics.
The bottom 5 take a gram of tren, primo, test, GH, anavar and slin and hire the best trainer.
The top 5 they just hit the gym 4 or so times a week however they want and eat a decent diet.
The top 5 will still look better than the bottom 5, be stronger, get more women, etc.
Were talking the top 1 percent vs bottom 1 percent.
Drugs help, genetics help 10x more. In my opinion.
We can juice Andy dalton to the gills and then tell pat Mahomes he can't lift for 2 years and has to eat Burger King at least 1x a day, Andy Dalton still won't sniff pat maholmes jock strap lol