The quotes did tip me off, but only after I read the article. I do not think that the average reader is going to notice the quotes beforehand, or that doing so will lead to an immediate understanding of the article's subject matter. Obviously, a recovering journalist might think it more obvious.
My issue is that I was initially expecting to learn that Bradley wasn't actually paralyzed or that the article would at least focus on him. Other than a sentence or two, that's not at all what I got. Also, it seems like a shitty thing to do to cash in on a celebrity's misfortune. I understand that sensationalist and deliberately misleading headlines are nothing new. That doesn't mean I have to like it, even if I agree with what is being said. For me, the message gets watered down because of the bad taste in my mouth from being misled by the headline. I want people on my side of the argument to take the high road, and not be compared to obnoxious assclowns like Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless.
As for suggesting that the author needed Bradley's permission, that's not what I said or even implied. I said that if Bradley was on board with his life changing event being used in this manner to increase awareness, then it would change my opinion. That may seem like a semantic argument to you, but I see a distinction.
Shawn Bradley's Life-changing Tragedy Highlights Continued Miss-use of the Term "Bicycle Accident" would have made the point. Yes, yes, too wordy, but I'm not a journalist, not even a recovering one. Shawn Bradley's Paralysis Wasn't Caused by a "Bicycle Accident" would have been fine as well.