I'm creating a new thread rather than clutter up the Hamilton thread, specifically to explore the issue of Santiago Botero.
In 1999 Botero was suspended for 6 months for having four separate test readings showing high testosterone.
The four test readings showed 17, 27, 28, and 29 nanograms. I'm not sure what the "scale" was, but presume it was per liter, since many references I've found show normal male testosterone to be about .3 - 1.2 ng/l, and the allowable limit for testosterone at the time was 6 nanograms according to this article from cyclingnews.com
So, Botero had 3 - 5 times the maximum allowed testosterone, and was banned.
He was later cleared and told he could resume cycling because he showed that he had an unusually high normal testosterone level.
The doctor who showed that this was the case? Eufemiano Fuentes.
Who is Eufemiano Fuentes? Why does that name ring a bell? He was the Kelme team doctor during the time that Jesus Manzano alleged that there was a widespread and systematic doping problem within the team. Manzano alleged to have prescriptions for testosterone signed by Fuentes.
So, you have the interesting situation of a rider banned for doping (Botero) "cleared" by a doctor who not too long afterwards was implicated in one of the largest systematic-doping scandals of recent years.
The person on the Hamilton thread brought up Botero as an example of someone who was thought to be guilty, but in reality was not.
So what do you think?