Let's get the order straight:
The "salting" on scratching posts was done in the 1998 'study'.
The 'control samples' were sent later, to cover their a$$ after they got wind down the grapevine that they had been snitched off by some of their cohorts.
Where do you get that from? None of the articles say that, do they? The 1998 study was discredited because the lab screwed up. Nobody has claimed fur was planted in the 1998 study. If you think otherwise, then please point me to the article that says so. The hairs were sent in in 1999 & 2000.
You are right, the articles that you have inserted do not say that, but it is the only logical conclusion that is supported by all of the facts available.
When a jury deliberates, it is usually what pertinant facts they were NOT told that they have to figure out, is it not?