Neither of you could know that without seeing examples of how big and cut the OP is talking about and what he defines as the “classic muscle-bound physique.” There are definitely physiques that are highly unlikely to be obtained without PED use, and the OP may be talking about bodies in that category.
One does not need to be a bodybuilder to have that knowledge, and being a bodybuilder doesn’t necessarily give one more knowledge on picking out natural potential vs the chemically enhanced.
IME, seeing visible abs isn’t what causes people to assume steroids usage.
Yes, you’re very right. Arnold Schwarzenegger may indeed be asking for insight on the subject under a pseudonym. But I’ll play the odds and go with “nope.” And by odds I mean the very small percentage of the worldwide population that works out enough to achieve a level of fitness even a layman would consider “bodybuilder physique.” It’s like 1% of the population, last I checked.
Actually, yes, it does. Being a bodybuilder means one is part of a very small community wherein in this is a HUGE subject. What you more likely mean to say is that anyone can have an opinion, and you might mistakenly think all opinions are equally valid. I’d go with one based on applied knowledge and experience rather than “I saw this guy with big muscles - probably steroids.”
I’ll concede the misguided viewpoint posted above is more popular.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Sarcasm isn’t working well for you.
No, that’s not what being a bodybuilder means, and many bodybuilding “communities” (there isn’t just one) don’t consider the subject of steroids at all or concern themselves with being proficient at picking out chemically enhanced bodies.
I mean what I said and didn’t say what you’re implying.