If it looks exactly like that lens, why wouldn't it be that lens? I don't know what Ken Rockwell is on about when he says "Nikon calls this the Nikon AF NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED Macro", when Nikon does not actually appear to do any such thing. This appears to be the official page from Nikon for that lens:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1986/AF-Zoom-NIKKOR-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-Overview

And as you can see, no mention of macro.

I think the moral of the story here is "when it's important, don't trust Ken Rockwell's site". A lot of his writing on photography is very good, but he also throws up a lot of junk without bothering to fact check or do quality/editorial control, and then he hides behind the "It's all a big joke" claim instead of being responsible. That wouldn't be so bad (just another crazy guy on the internet) except that so many people assume that he's an authority.

Update: in the interest of practicing the honesty and editorial review I am preaching... Further down on the page, he says Nikon mentions "macro" on the box and in the instructions because this lens has much closer focusing than Nikon's 1982-1988 manual-focus 80-200/2.8. And, indeed, Ken provides a picture of the box, where the word Macro certainly appears. But Nikon doesn't appear to really call the lens that officially, so I still think his warning is over-prominent in a way that is misleading, and he shouldn't put that name (constructed from multiple lines on the box) at the top of the page saying that it's the name Nikon uses.

Complaining that macro shouldn't be used in this way is legitimate, as the lens has a very-not-macro maximum magnification of 1:7.1, but with the page as it is, he's propagating the labeling of the lens as "macro" rather than combating it.

Nikon's real macro lenses, by the way, are labeled Micro, not Macro.