I heard the hypothesis that PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) compensate for genetic disadvantages in athletes, thus the PEDs make the sport more "fair".
I do not really care about the philosophic aspect (the second part of the hypothesis). I am interested in the first part.
I talk about this hypothesis with a few people in the mid/top-level sport (I guess some of them actually used PEDs) and they somehow agree with this statement. However, no one sounds 100% confident.
Is the statement the PEDs compensate for genetic disadvantages in athletes correct? I understand that such issues are not black or white so the question is maybe more like to what level is this statement valid?
The problem could be also formulated in a following example:
Consider an athlete in some specific sport. This athlete is not genetically suitable for the given sport in a terms of weight, strength, speed and/or endurance (nor height or similar hardcoded parameters).
Can this athlete match the more genetically suitable athletes for the given sport via the usage of the suitable PEDs? Can this athlete beat them? Or the PEDs will not be enough to match them? Would the disadvantaged athlete benefit more from PEDs than the more "gifted" athletes? Is ability to benefit from PEDs more limited for athletes who already has good genetic dispositions?
Note that I am talking about PEDs usage protocol that is "viable" for a professional sport where it is illegal (also I know there is quite a difference in how the given sport/country/league interprets the "illegal" issue).
I am not much interested in opinions or cool stories. I am asking about some large sample research or long time observation summary that seems to be valid.