The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail. To sum up the current state of the scientific investigation, the carbon dating does NOT still stand.
As additional information you might consider the book, The Blood and the Shroud, by Ian Wilson, published in 1998. To quote The Washington Post (sorry 'bout that), "Wilson's outstanding study must surely be the most complete yet undertaken of the subject." Although it is the most recent book I have personally read on the subject, you can probably find more up to date info. However, it is quite readable and answers most of the non-radiocarbon dating questions quite well.
The recent discoveries (repairs at the site of sample used for radiocarbon dating, 1st century stitching methodology, image on the back) are obviously not addressed in the book.
Since you raised the radiocarbon dating question, I should re-emphasize the two points I made in my earlier post: fire and biocontamination. Both are addressed in the above referenced book, and both have the potential to skew the results substantially more than you might realize.
1. The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud, binding carbon items from the atmosphere at the time of the fire.
2. The biological "sheath" was quite thick, resulting in enough biomass to skew the results substantially.
These two points are separate from the repairs made to the cloth at the site of the sample, which is sufficient to invalidate the radiocarbon testing all by itself.
Does this have to do with the pollen? I remember hearing or reading about how a test was done on pollen found on the Shroud. I guess it was a carbon dating. Anyway it showed the pollen was from the Middle Ages. Then a scientist discovered that there was a crust of pollution on the pollen. Once that was scraped off another carbon dating test showed the pollen was from around 100 AD and had been of plants that grew in Jerusalem at that time.