Unfortunately I did not have a link and do not know how to create one even with a URL address. I don't think you want me to reproduce the original document, in full, here, though I can. Apparently it was a PowerPoint presentation, with just 3 citations, perhaps not what you were looking for. There is perhaps a better example for creationists addressing contamination, with tons of citations, at C-14 Dating - ScienceVsEvolution.org. I checked and it came up third when I used the title in a Google search.
Thanks for the linked source. Toward the end of the paper is a section where they show 6 objections and rebuttals. I think probably the best way for me to respond is to address both the objections and rebuttals. I will put in quotes so my responses will not be confused with the objections and rebuttals.
(1) OBJECTION: "A possible reason for radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones is that collagen contains nitrogen atoms as well as carbon and hydrogen. Irradiation from the Uranium atoms in the soil surrounding the dinosaur femur bones or absorbed in the dinosaur bones through the action of water percolating through the bones could continually over millions of years keep changing the existing nitrogen into C-14.49
REBUTTAL: Bone bio-apatite, which is calcium carbonate, has NO nitrogen yet the RC age for the same bone is concordant with the RC age for the bone collagen. A similar objection has been raised for C-14 in coal and diamond (1) as analysis shows there is sometimes a small percentage of nitrogen: This objection has been refuted by other scientists because the radiation flux and cross section of nitrogen atoms would be too small for radiation from uranium sources to change nitrogen into C-14.
True, Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) contains no "N" in its formula. However, pure CaCO3 does not exist in nature, there will be numerous other contanimants, including nitrogen which is the most abundent gas on Earth. The chemical process of 14C being converted into 14C in the presense of Uranium and Thorium is well known. Also, they don't date the calcium carbonate, rather the collegan. As for coal and diamond having 14C, yes it can, but it is "in situ" 14C. Also, another fact not recognized in the paper is that no one has ever broken open a dinosaur bone and found collagen or any soft tissue for that matter. The soft tissue is not revealed until the minerals which incapsulate it are dissolved.
(2) OBJECTION: "Modern bacteria and fungi could infiltrate the femur bones to give a young date."50
REBUTTAL: C-14 labs claim that the alkaline cleaning procedure removes modern bacteria contaminants. Also the bacteria etc would be the same age as their host since they are eating the organic material and minerals including bio-apatite in the bones.
Objection 2 is true, that can happen, especially since the sample tested was in a museum for quite a while before the sample was obtained. As for the rebuttal, they have it backwards. For bones, Longin's technique [1971, Nature 230(5291)241] is used to remove the apatite fraction in acid, and then hydrolyze the bone collagen which remains as the desired sample.
(3) OBJECTION: "The radiocarbon dating method is not applicable for samples >50,000 years."51
REBUTTAL: C-14 dating of dinosaur fossil bones from Western United States showed that they are far younger than even 50,000 RC years. The critic who said the above is assuming that dinosaurs are 65 M years or older because of a commitment to the false assumptions of 17 to 19th century stratigraphy and alleged correlation with radiometric dating. Because of their faith in evolutionary philosophy such critics have never bothered to even repeat the C-14 testing to see if the anomalous dates are correct. That attitude is unscientific and regrettable coming from a top scientist in a major field of science.
Again the objection is solid. You just don't radiocarbon date fossils contained in rock strata already dated and known to be millions of years old. Concerning their rebuttle, again, another misdirection. Yes, certain layers of strata were identified in the 17th to 19th centuries, but they had no way of dating them until recently. The rebuttal assumption is they are fitting radiometrically obtained dates to meet 17th-19th presumed dates by people who had no way of dating anything.
(4) OBJECTION: "The carbon isolated from the dinosaur bones had no chemical relationship to bone protein or flesh."52
REBUTTAL: This objection is based on the writer's belief in long ages of millions and billions of years. The discovery of bone collagen and soft tissue and C-14 dating of the collagen negated that assumption.53 Of course he wrote this in 1992 so in all fairness he can not be faulted for his acceptance of mainstream assumptions of that period. Nonetheless such negativity is of no value to any rational scientific evaluation of anomalous data. Unfortunately that attitude is still prevalent to this day. The discoverers of collagen (anomalous chemicals) in the T-Rex femur bone should have sent a sample to a RC dating lab to test for C-14 but perhaps they were fearful that they would be the first among mainstream scientists to discover why there was collagen: The bones might be only thousands of year old, not millions.
The objection again is true, the paper does not describe how carbon isolated for the dinosaur bones quantified as being related to it. And one again, the rebuttle they give doesn't even apply to the objection. And if they are so adamant about the earth being only 6,000 years old, why are they so happy with 14C dates of 30 to 40 Ky.
(5) OBJECTION: "The use of expensive chemical and physical tests and equipment and learned testimonials are irrelevant to interpreting the data."54
REBUTTAL: This statement naturally follows from a firm belief in biological evolution and long ages and must be ignored in favor of research by unbiased scientists who will test for C-14 in dinosaur bone collagen and soft tissue from the Western United States; thousands of the bones sit untested in dozens of museums. By testing for C-14 they will then know if these anomalous RC ages are valid. Furthermore since there are fossil human-like footprints with dinosaurs in alleged 100 M year old Cretaceous limestone 55/56 and distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide 57 it is paramount that scientists test for C-14 in dinosaurs world-wide to see if C-14 in dinosaur bones is a world-wide phenomenon. Truth in science emerges in experimentation and keen observations.
The objection is spot on. Remember where I pointed out above where they said their sample was pretreated with an alkaline solution? That is wrong, an acid solution is used in pretreating bone/collagen. Looking at their rebuttal, again, nothing stated there has anything to do with the objection.
(6) OBJECTION: Because of radiometric dating of volcanic material in many strata of the geologic column, the demise of the dinosaurs was extended from an assumed 12 million years by S. Hubbard58 in 1924 to 65 million years in the 1990's in the Colorado Hell Creek Cretaceous formation by G. B. Dalrymple.59
REBUTTAL: Both time periods are 480 to 2600 time greater than that with direct C-14 dating of the dinosaurs and other fossils from Texas to Alaska. Other examples include: (a) In RC dating the fossil human-like footprint impressions in Mexico S. Gonzalez et al. obtained ages of about 27,000 to 40,000 RC years for shells etc.60 But Renne et al. used K/Ar and Ar/Ar on volcanic material obtained dates of 800,000 and 1,300,000 years61 respectively or about 300 to 480 times greater than that for C-14. (b) For the distinct and pristine fossil human footprints in Texas, in the United States, the alleged geologic age is 108,000,000 years or 2900 times older than that obtained for two RC dates of ~37,500 RC years for carbonized wood in the clay between the limestone strata. 62
Both are pretty much the same as objection and rebuttal (5).
Outside of this paper I was able to find additional information concerning the lab performing the tests. It was the University of Georgia radiocarbon lab that performed the test. Supposedly, samples sent to them were not identified as dinosaur collagen, and frankly, there is no way the UGA radiocarbon lab or any radiocarbon lab on this planet would even accept a sample identified as dinosaur collagen, much less date it. Also, the paper did not describe how they extracted the collagen. Did they just send the lab some bone collagen misidentified.