That’s just life. There are many genetic advantages and disadvantages people have beyond just athletic ability, not to mention non genetic advantages like opportunities due to wealth, gender, race, birth place, influential peers, etc.

If you follow your logic and some how eliminate all outside advantage, then you may come to the conclusion that athletic competition is meaningless.

Why are you and downvotes/others possibly able to extend my logic into a wild conclusion. Yet, I assume you would find me taking your logic down a wild path as preposterous.

Following your logic of that’slife and genetics are part of natural life while steroids are so wrong, we should heavily focus on making sure advantages from consumption are curbed. No supplements, no high protein low calorie food. Limit medications and so on.

As genetics are a part of life, something I never disagreed with, and we all agree they are not equal in fairness, why are steroids of almost any kind frowned upon so strongly? But other life advantages or disadvantages are hand waved away?

Because having good genetics isn't enough to actually achieve anything, and there are a myriad of reasons someone with excellent genetics won't achieve as much as someone with lesser genetics.

Outside sports that are only about strength (if there are any), steroid usage isn’t enough to actually achieve anything in athletics. There are many reasons why two people taking some assortment of steroids will have one achieve much more than the other. Even when the achiever uses less steroids.