Though I personally have no interest in using steroids, I also have no moral objection to their use. There are a number of reasons why insinuations of steroid use not backed by evidence piss me off.
First, the people floating the idea usually
do have moral or ethical objections to steroid use, so the allegations are a not-so-covert form of character assassination.
Second, strength training is a subject about which I am extremely passionate. It's not uncommon for me to spend literally hours a day studying the intricacies of the field and its underlying theory. The spastic recourse to the steroids theory any time someone demonstrates muscular gains puts the field of strength training in a bad light. It's not necessary to use steroids to gain muscle; the only thing steroids does is enable a person to exceed their natural genetic potential. There's no evidence whatsoever that Matthews has done that.
Third, the allegation is not parsimonious -- that is to say, it's not the simplest explanation of facts available. It therefore violates Occam's Razor. It also betrays a profound lack of understanding of human physiology and training theory.
Look at pictures of Clay Matthews III. He does not look like a man who has been abusing steroids. He is unbelievably cut. You can practically see every muscle fiber in his body. That only happens with extremely low body fat levels. Men on steroids, by contrast, tend to look puffy, because they retain so much water. The cut-and-ripped look characteristic of professionals bodybuilders (almost all of whom
are on steroids) is only obtained with extreme dieting just before competitions or photo shoots. If anyone thinks Matthews is performing at an NFL level while on a severe caloric deficit, he is at best ignorant and at worst borderline insane.
As mentioned previously, steroids enable a man to exceed his genetic potential. Matthews does not look like he is in any way carrying an unnatural amount of weight. Yes, he is massive, but he just looks like he hits the gym extremely hard and consumes an enormous number of calories.
And that's my whole point. Anyone who thinks Matthews' weight gains are excessive (or even all that impressive) has simply never experienced the power of intense, fundamentally sound weight training. There is not an able-bodied man on this board who could not gain 60 pounds of solid muscle over four years, unless he is already an elite athlete. Most of the men on this board could probably gain those 60 pounds in less than two years. I guarantee I could easily put at least 20 and probably closer to 40 pounds of solid muscle on any one of you over the course of a summer alone, with a simple program of squats, deadlifts, bench press, overhead press, rows and perhaps pullups, chinups, and dips.
Anyone you know who spends hours a week in the gym and never gets any bigger either a) doesn't eat enough, b) wastes all his time working the vanity muscles (pecs, bis, and abs) and ignores the massive muscles in his legs and back, or c) both.
Has Clay Matthews III ever used steroids? We will probably never know for certain. Could he have gained the muscle he has now without using them? Without question.
So until there's some evidence to the contrary, why don't we give him the benefit of the doubt?