That one is particularly telling in that it gives his own assessment of himself. He has obviously at least given lip service to the point that all drug AND alcohol programs always must bring home: once a person develops an addiction, it is for life. It does not go away. There is never a guarantee that they will not use or drink again.
Ricci committed crimes while out on parole--in the past, and during his last parole. He didn't follow the biggest, baddest provision of parole, the one that if you violate it, you get locked back up for sure--the one that says "no new crimes, no new arrests." Why would he bother with the lesser provisions, such as drug use prohibition? On those, sometimes one can talk his way out of falling off the wagon, at least once. The parole officer would not have left that basis for revocation in, if it hadn't existed right when he was about to have parole revoked. They are very specific, and number the conditions which have not been followed. They only include what they can prove.
I have no doubt that you are correct. Apparently, what could be proved was that Ricci had not attended some sort of "treatment program." What I did not see proved, nor listed among his offenses, were any charges related to current drug use.
As to why this issue is important to me, my reasons are twofold. One, it has been speculated by some that an ongoing, active addiction to an illicit drug would have made Ricci more likely to have committed this crime. I have no problem with such speculation, as long as an ongoing, active addiction has been documented. Two, I don't like to see anything accepted and discussed as "fact" on here without proper documentation.