SIs and the WSJ.

In the middle of an excellent article in the Wall St Journal today, about how Citadel decided to bail out E*trade, there was this sentence:
"It is a humiliating comedown for E*Trade and its now-deposed chief executive, Mitch Caplan, who failed sufficiently to anticipate the impact of mortgage failures. "
To me, this sentence with its clumsy positioning of 'sufficiently' is very inelegant. I'm surprised, I'd expect to see this clumsy avoidance of a split infinitive in an English newspaper, but the US papers have been mercifully free of this. They seem to abide by the rule that if avoiding the SI makes the sentence too clunky or unnatural, you should just use it. Fowler calls this idea about avoiding split infinitives altogether a 'superstition', and Gowers calls it a 'bad rule'. When I have this argument with English colleagues I invariably cite the WSJ and NYT as examples of publications that are better-written then their UK counterparts (especially true of the WSJ) and which aren't bound by this stricture. And which, for good measure, don't carry horoscopes either.
I've emailed the WSJ reporter, I expect she'll think I'm a complete nutter and hit the delete key.

POSTSCRIPT: She emailed back! It wasn't her fault, it was edited by someone else, and she attached his explanatory note. As an extra-special bonus, she said it made her laugh. (With me, I'm assuming, not at me.)

POST POSTSCRIPT: Thanks to Fausgang for pointing out the two hideous typos in the original entry. This is why I need G&F friends.