[Vision]

"Could it be his particular cancer was caused by his choice of performance enhancing steroids/drugs??"

No, Lance didn't start doping until they started racing in Europe and wanted to keep up- long after the cancer comeback.

[Baynative]

Wasn't he already riding in Europe with Motorola and (then) under contract with Cofidis when he was diagnosed? I remember a dust up when they either cut him or offered him a no salary performance based contract and he quit which (I think) led to the Postal Service team.

My memory is shaky, but I think he had been moving up in status for a couple of years and aready won the Worlds and a few one day classics.

[Third Person]

Lance wasn't doping before his testicular cancer? That's not what I've heard...

From Selena Roberts and SI:

According to Dr. Donald Catlin’s estimate, his lab at UCLA performed more than two dozen tests of Armstrong between 1990 and 2000. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results – specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone (T:E) ratios – for a cyclist identified by a source with knowledge of the request as Lance Armstrong. Three results indicated high T:E ratios, specifically: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996.

Roberts and Epstein report: “Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1. But the high ratios had not led to sanctions. In his letter Catlin did not address the 6.5-to-1 result, but he wrote that he had attempted confirmation (a required step) on the 9.0-to-1 and 7.6-to-1 samples, and ‘in both cases the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative.’ ”

And don't forget the Strock v. USA Cycling/Rene Wenzel case.