Key phrases in your link.

"of 2447 condoms ... 51 tore and 40 slipped off."

But how many of those were improperly used.

Who took unnecessary risks, thus increasing chances of condom failure? and who was improperly educated about the risks?

Risk #1

"Vaginal condoms failed more often than anal condoms (4.6% vs 3.1%)"

Risk #2

"the failure rate was lower than with oil-based lubricants (1.7% vs 10.3%). When no lubricant was used the failure rate was 6.1%."

"Data suggest that adequate use of lubricants might even be a more important factor in preventing condom failure than type of condoms used."

And you skillfully neglected the conclusion of the link you provided.

"Although the results indicate that improving the use of condoms among gay men is important, it was also noted that condom failure in this cohort decreased from 8% in 1986 to 4% in 1991."

Which of course also brings to light that this research is 18 years old, the report having been published in 1992.