The smell of something fishy in the air...
What doesn't make sense to me is that the Miami Herald is citing two different anonymous sources would break confidentiality rules by confirming the same exact part of the report, but would then both refuse to go any further out on a limb and name the substance for which RW had allegedly tested positive. If they're going to break confidentiality rules of the substance abuse program anyway, why just the half measure? Sounds suspiciously to me like sensationalism to sell papers- if he simply missed a test (which would be failed test, but not a positive test like Cole reports), then Cole should face disciplinary action for falsely reporting a story (unless RW actually tested positive or Cole's sources actually stated that RW tested positive).