Careful there! That is just me rambling - be wary of taking ANYTHING i say as gospel! haha!
It is how i am, i think out loud, most of my posts are me working shit out for myself in my head and sharing that so people my pick something out from it.
That is not to say that there is no fact in there, as there is - but the part about Boldenone being CII simply because when it is methylated (as Dbol) it is a CI is a small leap of faith, to say the least.
BR is the man who came up with this system of classification, so he would be the first i'd consult (as i am sure his opinion on Boldenone has changed since writing that article).
The post is 'IMO' - so just bear that in mind if you intend to repeat that bold is definitely a CII steroid.
(of course some dont even consider the 'dual classification' system to be of any accuracy or use, so that too may want to be considered if repeating it!)
I do stick by the suggestion that the classification system works better as a sliding scale of AR binding strength (or affinity) than as a 'yes or no' system; as two synergistic groups (as clearly some do not fall within the two circles).
Methylation DOES reduce the AR binding strength, so it would be fairly safe to assume (to the best of my knowledge) that all methylated steroids are at least MORE class II than class I.
I will have to look that up actually, as i am not clear if it is methylation in and of itself or 17-alpha (alkylation) methylation that does this, with (for example) 1-methylation not having this effect (like proviron for example which is 1-methyl dihydrotestosterone).
(As i said, rambling!)