Here are peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion.
"The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop's scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.
The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples." http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
The samples were taken from non-patch areas and exhibited the 3 to 1 herringbone consistant with the main body of the cloth.
It looks like another example of Liars for God in action.
So what? Your claim that it was a non-patch areas has been proved wrong.
The protocols of the samples to be taken from the Shroud required EIGHT SAMPLES from EIGHT different locations on the Shroud including samples that had image and samples that had no image. Your "peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion" show that the protocol was VIOLATED. Instead of EIGHT SAMPLES from different areas of the Shroud, only ONE SAMPLE was taken and then divided among THREE labs instead of the SIX originally specified in the agreed protocols. That one, single sample was taken from an area that had been EXCLUDED from the protocols because of previous evidence that it was unsuitable. The agreed protocols were discarded at literally the last hour by Fr. Rigge, the person who actually cut the sample, because he, a non-scientist, decided the agreed sampling protocol would cause too much damage to the Shroud.
What your peer reviewed article did document was the failure of the sampling protocols.
Who was present is irrelevant, except that one of them made a big mistake. The three-in-one Herringbone weave is irrelevant and not proof of anything. Mrs. Swordmaker has a Linen table cloth that is three-in-one Herringbone weave. If I were to cut a tea stained spot out of her table cloth (not something I could do and survive 'til morning—and no, there are no tea stains in her tablecloth) and laid it next to a sample of the Shroud, it is likely that they would be extremely similar. Having such a weave at the beginning of a journey to a test lab and having such a weave at the end of the journey is not proof that the sample is the same at each end. Ergo, just the fact that the weave is the same does not prove WHAT that weave is made of or when. Mere observation that the samples have herringbone weaves is not sufficient scientific examination. What is relevant is the fact is that the protocols were violated, the sample area poorly considered, and therefore the samples were invalid. Garbage in, Garbage out.
The C14 labs were innocent of the failure of science in this. They tested accurately what they were sent—samples that were mixed older and newer material.
After the publication of your "peer reviewed" article in Nature 337 published in February, 1989, has been superseded by further research that shows the samples were not homogenous nor were they exemplar of the thing intended to be tested. The tested samples were a melange of older, original shroud linen and newer linen that had been dyed to match the aged color of the original and then skillfully rewoven into the original cloth, DUPLICATING the original three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud. (A skillful repairer would have done a poor job had they merely sewn on a one-over-one patch made of red cotton, don't you think?).
Peer reviewed and duplicated work in 2004 and 2005 has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the samples tested in 1988 were invalid. Photomicrographs of the remaining sub-sample clearly show the splicing of threads of mis-matched linen by careful end-to-end interweaving of the fibers making up the individual threads. On the main body of the Shroud, threads that broke or ran out while weaving were simply spliced by laying two threads side-by-side and weaving this double woof or warp thread for a distance sufficient to lock the thread. No threads have been observed that were spliced by joining end-to-end as were those found in the C14 samples. The linen threads closer to the edge of the cloth are contaminated with cotton, dyed with a madder root dye, retted with an alum (2% aluminum!) based mordant, and are slightly smaller on average than threads taken from other areas of the Shroud, and contain a significant remnant of vanillin in the cellular structure. These threads are distinctly different from threads taken from the main body of the shroud which contain no cotton, were not dyed, have no madder root substances on them, show absolutely no aluminum, are statistically larger than newer threads, and show absolutely no vanillin remnant. Therefor, the samples are made of two different sources of linen... and are therefor not exemplar of the Shroud.
In the face of this evidence, anyone who still thinks the C14 tests done in 1988 are still valid is clinging to an unreasonable doubt.
Which, of course, is why so many respected scientists have agreed that the Carbon-14 tests were flawed and Oxford University is doing new tests, last I heard?