Did not mean to "dismiss" the conclusions in the new study per se. For example, one potential source of the contrast is that many of the studies in the Stat News article were focused on young (or young-ish) athletes, while the VA study is entirely military veterans.
Those 3,000 cases were actively monitored for cardiac issues, while the VA study is purely passive and observational (which the article itself raises as a caveat). It's not just a matter of comparing raw sample sizes.