That's one of the worst ad hominems I've ever seen. Sure, the author herself might have done OK, but she's pretty explicit that the incident affected others and that there are many more who haven't been so fortunate. She even names several and tells their stories. She uses her own case only as an example, not as the basis for her entire argument. Dismissing it because "she's a beneficiary" is absurd.

> she's pretty explicit that the incident affected others and that there are many more who haven't been so fortunate. She even names several and tells their stories.

For the three other athletes mentioned by name, in each case the story is that they had medical issues caused by, exacerbated by, or at least neglected by the NCAA. That's a real injustice and a real story. What happened to the author is meh.

> What happened to the author is meh.

So ignore it. Any time you find one part of an argument or its presentation lacking, just look past it. You'll find that it often doesn't affect the validity of the whole, and when that's the case picking on the non-essential part just shows bad faith.

> it's dishonest to say "My Career" when it explicitly refers to her achievements as a professed amateur

NCAA's claims of "amateurism" are blatantly dishonest in the first place. They control what are pro minor leagues in every way except for the denial of straightforward compensation to the players.