Hi. First time poster, long time lurker.
Soaking was required.
You’re talking about the same bone as BroJoeK. They cracked open a T.Rex fossil (from a T.Rex named Bob) because it was too heavy for the helicopter. But the article you cited makes it seem like they found wet meat inside as soon as it split. That’s not exactly what happened.
What happened was, they changed the usefulness of the fossil. It was no longer a “show” bone. So they sent the Dr. Schweitzer, who found microscopic traces of bone. Then she soaked it in an acid they dissolves rock, and found blood cells and scraps of collagen.
There are quite a few articles on this, but I’ll cite the one from the Smithsonian.com because you’ve already shown a preference for it.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=2
If it’s the same bone [your cite says it was found in 2000; my cite talks about a bone found in 2002] then it was soaked. But if soaking means it was mummified, then all bones, including fresh bones, are mummified:
Q: As I recall, you soaked fossils in a mild acid to dissolve the mineral deposits on the inside of the bones. Why does the acid not harm or dissolve the vessels as well, but instead leaves them intact and pliable? Paul Moffett, Indianapolis, Indiana
Schweitzer: That is a good question. The type of acid we use is very commonly applied to remove the mineral from modern bone to reveal the structural proteins that are so intimately linked to the mineral. It is a very mild acid and is more accurately a metal chelator than a true “acid.” So it removes the mineral while leaving the protein intact, and it does not harm cell membranes or vessels in modern bone, so we hoped that it would not in our ancient material either.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html