No, you didn't. You merely cut-and-pasted a portion of the article published in Nature 337 from February 1989.
A proper link to the article would be done like this:
Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, by P. E. Damon, D. J. Donahue, B. H. Gore, A. L. Hatheway, A. J. T. Jull, T. W. Linick, P. J. Sercel, L. J. Toolin, C.R. Bronk, E. T. Hall, R. E. M. Hedges, R. Housley, I. A. Law, C. Perry, G. Bonani, S. Trumbore, W. Woelfli, J. C. Ambers, S. G. E. Bowman, M. N. Leese & M. S. Tite., Nature 337, February 1989, pps 651-657.
That would allow people to really read what was reported.
I critiqued your conclusions from that article that you asserted "proved" the sample was taken from a non-patch area. They did not know at that time that the sample area was patched. Had they known, it would not have been used.
In science, it is not unusual for research to be disproved in later years. Entire science text books are worthless today because the "Facts" they presented as true have been disproved.
However, they did violate their own protocols... which came out in peer reviewed books and articles, such as this one: Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties by archaeologist William Meacham, that were very critical of the violation of procedures and pointed out the very real potential for problems which have now surfaced.
In the study of the Shroud, many early conclusions have been falsified by later research. For example, Dr. Pierre Barbet's studies on cadavers claiming that a nail through the palm would not support the weight of a body, published in peer reviewed journals in France, have been proven wrong by more modern research: Peirre Barbet Revisited by Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe. Therefor, the conclusions published by Dr. Barbet have been discarded in favor of better science.
In the case of the Nature article, other critiques of the Shroud's reported age started to rise almost immediately. Over the years, more and more discrepancies were noted. Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud: A Critical Statistical Analysis" by R Van Haelst, a chemical statistician, noted in 1997 that there were serious problem with the variation of ages reported not only by the three labs but also with the variation in ages reported by the tests done on sub-sub-samples done within each lab. This was a red flag that was totally ignored which should have indicated that the samples were not homogenous. In fact, statistical analysis proves that even the 8 tested pieces that the Arizona lab tested were NOT FROM THE SAME POPULATION. In this paper, Van Haelst reveals that the Oxford managers of the 1988 Shroud C14 tests, dissatisfied with the variation of ages from the Arizona lab, arguably the most sophisticated lab on the list, admitted that they decided to massage the data to make it more in agreement! Van Haelst's work has not been refuted.
The proper statistical analysis of the raw data from the three labs shows that the tested samples were less and less related to each other the farther away from the edge of the Shroud the tested sample had been located. The master sample was not the same, homogenous, from one end to the other.
This prompted scholarly researchers Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, hypothesize that the non-homogeneity of the samples was due to a renaissance era patching by a little known technique known as French invisible Reweaving which was used to patch valuable wall hangings, tapestries, and arrases. They published Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, in 2000. They followed it with Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin", Historical Support of a 16th Century Restoration in the Shroud C-14 Sample Area, and New Historical Evidence Explaining the ‘Invisible Patch’ in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud.
This prompted the late Raymond N. Rogers (who had done micro-chemical analysis of the nature of the actual image mechanism, which he reported in The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain The Image Formation by Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, Melanoidins Vol 4., Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.106-113) to attempt to disprove Benford's and Marino's contention that the samples were a patched area and were not consistent with the main body of the Shroud which he believed to be unsupportable. He did the research and reported his findings in Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers [January 2005], Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194. His tests proved that Benford's and Marino's hypothesis was actually correct. The 1988 C14 Study sample was NOT the same as the main body of the Shroud.
Incidentally, Rogers findings on the samples were independently confirmed in Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads From the Shroud of Turin by John L. Brown, who had in his custody threads from the Raes sample taken from the Shroud in 1973 from an area immediately adjacent and closer to the left edge than the 1988 samples. These were found to be 100% non-original Shroud material, homogenous to the interloping linen on the 1988 samples but not to any main body threads.
For further proof that Ferrous Oxide has nothing to do with the image on the Shroud, read A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and InterpretationsBy Thibault Heimburger. You might also want to read Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) By Raymond N. Rogers (2004), that, in several of the answers, lays out why your pet theory of Ferrous Oxide creation is not viable.
Are these links sufficient? I assure you that there are hundreds more that I could post. Note that ALL of these post-date yours Nature article and directly demolish your Science et Vie article with real science, not twaddle.
In answer to your question about why no further C14 tests have been done, the answer is simple. The Vatican, the owner of the Shroud, has declined permission for any authorized C14 tests.
Since I have put so much work into responding to you, I have decided to ping the members of the Shroud of Turin Ping List to this reply. I think they will find it useful.
I thought I just read that Oxford University was doing new tests and the results were do any time? Was this on the original material, or did they obtain new samples?