I think we're in the same camp here; I believe that the long-term effects of steroids are actually better for your health than worse (if you use them right, of course) but really, who knows? That's just my opinion. Stallon's getting up there in age and he openly admits using HGH, with apparently amazing results. Have you seen what he looks like? He looks better than most people thirty years younger. So I'd rule HGH out.
But yes the various blood-thickening drugs, insulin, beta-agonists, etc. could add to it as well. I know competitors using up to 5g/week of test and I'm sure they aren't setting records in bodybuilding for dosages. I don't really consider 1g to be a ridiculous amount, or even 2g when taking other compounds into account as well.
You might be right about the cardio and it must add SOME weight to the other side of the scale here. I really wish more were known about these compounds, but the sad reality is that the governments that "protect" us limit a lot of research on them, leaving us to rely on a lot of anectodal evidence and opinions.
Having said that, have you seen before-and-after blood test comparisons with AAS use? There's NO doubt that, depending on cycle length and your age, genetics, etc., AAS significantly impact your lipid profile for the worse (and I'm assuming here that that's a good indicator of circulatory health, which it may not be in this case since it's the heart itself and not the BVs being discussed). After a proper PCT though, no harm done, at least in my case. But I can see there is some merit to this study. How much? I'm not sure. Are you worried about these potential results down the road? Just curious...