The Michael Schumacher Career/Injury/Recovery Thread

Just a data point, albeit very significant to this MS discussion, about F1 drivers and branding - I've only attended a few F1 races, none more recent than 2012 - but in 2012 while MS was driving for Mercedes, at the races there were merchandise booths for most of the teams, selling team and driver-branded apparel and souvenirs. The ONLY driver to have his own booth, dedicated solely to selling branded items specific to the driver, was Schumacher. Regardless of his current rights to privacy, it is fair to say that Schumacher alone among the drivers up to 2012 had embraced public brand marketing to that extent.

 

Well, modern F1, and now add MotoGP, has a huge amount of product marketing in it..for each team and it's drivers.

Not only clothes, but autos, watches, drink and technology.....Tissot had the SMOKIN' babes, at COTA MotoGP.

If you join the circus, you have to wear the clothes..

Best wishes to Micheal, his family and everyone here.
Things will be better, in 2016.

 

My mate bought the Tissot.....


A Senna Ducati would be fine, with me....
The Hamilton MV, not so much...

We are leaving the thread behind, gents and ladies...don't make me request Beaker spin it off...

 

Yes, please don't make him request that. I'm planning to have a lovely evening with my wife tonight and don't want to get into thread dissection.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

It's certainly better than Graham Hill, crashing in the fog.....

 

Carry on, mate...love to the wife and family.

I have a marvelous new kitty for you, he's a little bruiser and a cuddle buddy without peer.
A good mouser, too!!

 

I have a Rossi watch, and would follow him if he decided to race recliners (yes, people actually do that).

I also have an autographed MS print. I have a lot of sports memorabelia. It's part of the bigger picture.

Andrew - MS's circumstances are in your line of expertise, no?

 

Andrew is actually more into the chemical side of neurology.

MS problems are in the hardware side, he's experienced a severe disruption of network wiring....

 

What you saw was the MS Collection. His very own brand which btw is still at the GPs today peddling stuff with his name on it. I saw their booth in the F1 village at Spa this year.

Hence my point about him going way out of the traditional drivers way to sell his brand to the public. Nothing wrong with that if you are willing to accept the consequences

 

+1

Was waiting for bags at LHR one time and Alan Jones happened to be the 100th (or whatever) to enter the arrivals hall....

"Excuse me sir, mind me asking where you've come from?"
...
"Err, hey guys, where have we just come from?!"
...

So many plane rides/destinations they all blur together.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Not at all.

I have been following motor racing and motorcycling for 55 years (sometimes as entrant) at least, and I have yet to buy ONE item of memorabilia, apparel, hat, scarf, sticker, cup, etc...

I never understood that craze and I never felt the impulse to buy and wear anything. In fact, it's right against my ethics to wear branded products. I wouldn't see the sense of it.

That doesn't mean that I haven't contributed, but in a different way. I once paid to replace the 250cc Aprilia bike one of my young neighbours had crashed in a race. When I had my garage, I sometimes offered some free work on cars as a mean of sponsoring someone. I have offered cups and trophies to the local club to give away to race winners. I gave my time to repair bikes and cars damaged in races, etc...

But I cannot see myself buy watches, models, and other trinkets. That has no appeal to me at all. I have never chased autograph once.

One day, coming back from Paul Ricard to Belgium, I stopped on the motorway in France, hailed by another driver. His car had apparently broken down. I recognised him as a leading F1 driver, and gave him a lift to Lyon, the nearest town. I could see that the guy probing me to see if I knew him. He started dropping names, places, but I didn't react.He told me he just came from testing a car in Italy. At the end, he said "Don't you want my autograph? Do you know who I am?" No, I wasn't interested. That shook him.
He wanted to pay me, which I refused. He left me his name and telephone number to contact him if one day I was to visit his country. "Very unlikely", I said.
The guy is now retired, in his 70s, I guess, he is household name, and he was WDC once.

This, just to explain that I am not starstruck by anyone.

 

Was he from Scotland?

 

Nope.

 

Yes. I've posted a few times about Schumacher and Bianchi in the F1 forum.

I've also got a signed poster of Schumacher's at home. I'm a big fan of his.

My thesis combined organic chemistry, neurobiology, and computer modelling to predict molecular characteristics, all with an overall neuroscience objective/theme. I'm not what I'd call expert on traumatic brain injury, but I'm reasonably well informed for both professional and personal reasons.

Bianchi suffered the disruption of wiring with a diffuse axonal injury, where the G-forces of the crash wrenched his brain around inside his head with such force that it stretched bits of it, tearing neurons apart.

I'm on my phone right now, so this is a somewhat rough summary...

Schumacher's injuries were a little different, but the "recovery" might depend on wiring. He experienced blunt force trauma on a mountain, and it took a little while to get him a helicopter from the lodge, meaning it was unlikely that he was treated within an hour (i.e. the "golden" hour) of his injuries. That delay would have had a negative effect on prognosis. It was reported to the press that he had intercranial bleeding in numerous locations, but that at least one of these sites was too deep for surgical repair - the surgical team would have had to cut through important regions of the brain to get to it, exacerbating the damage. Next there was swelling, whether from hemotomas (blood), cerebral spinal fluid (fills vehemotomas), or an inflammatory response to tissue damage, there's nowhere inside the skull for the swelling to go, so the brain gets crushed as the pressure increases. Doctors fought against this by cutting the skull to allow room for expansion.

If Schumacher's injury was severe enough to have killed off part of his brain either through blunt force trauma or ischemia (lack of oxygenated blood), and that seems likely, then doctors will have been working to save the penumbra, which is the area surrounding the core of the irretrievably damaged tissue. Unfortunately, dying tissue releases neurotransmitters when membranes break down and this can kill surrounding cells in the penumbra through a process known as excitotoxicity. There may have been more than one core and more than one penumbra, due to the effects of earlier injuries to his vasculature (blood supply). I suspect a lot of permanent damage was done.

Neuroplasticity is the potential of the brain to forge new neural pathways so that healthy brain regions can take over the function of destroyed brain regions. However, I'm not sure how much undamaged brain Schumacher has left and the ability of the brain to retrain itself in this way by creating those new connections declines significantly in the over 40s. I believe the slow progress that was often referred to is this process, but forward progress will get incrementally smaller as more time goes on - until he's made about as much of a recovery as he will ever make.

I'm afraid I've long stopped holding out hope of a smiling Schumacher waving from a balcony. I really hope it happens and would love to be proven wrong, but I fear the reality is that Schumacher as he was is gone.

As I said a very long time ago in the thread, this is information that the family seems to have released very slowly and alluded to. There's no big confirmation from them and it's really not needed in my opinion. I am a huge Schumacher fan but am OK with the silence, I think it's painfully clear what's going on.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Thanks for the explanation, Andrew! That makes a lot of sense, and confirms what I've suspected with my uninformed mind.

 

Thanks you for your very informative post. It's like a breath of fresh air in this debate.

I am a complete layman in neuro medical matters, but I had a nephew who suffered a huge cranial trauma in a motorcycle crash years ago, and survived in a vegetative state and severely incapacitated for many months before dying. So, unwittingly, I tend to draw a comparison, although each case is different. I fear Schumacher's family is watching powerless his long decline, and wants to preserve his dignity by not revealing much. That should be respected in my book, hence my indignation that some people feel entitled to demand information. His life belongs to him and his family and ultimately ...

 

I totally understand your view.....

Having met a lot of them "outside working hours" most are really great people.

I did a favor for Derrick Bell at COTA, then pulled back as he went ahead into VIP...
He asked, and I said: "I'll call it back in someday!!"



People are people, Mario is much the same, pretty mellow socially, but DON'T pop off wise to him, once the helmet is on.

Anyway, for another thread.

I think the F1 and MotoGPs guys have taken a page from the music industry, as on Tour the concession sales can alomst out run the ticket gate $$$, I am sure.

It is a modern view of it all.

 

I guess you missed the part where I said I was going to give an "extreme example" to try to explain the issue. This is a common technique in any debate or discussion. One gives an extreme example to try to find common ground on a subject, so that the participants can then explore examples of a lesser extreme to find the margins of the debate.

The most famous example of this is when Churchill asked Lady Astor if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She replied that she would be revolted, but "yes, I would sleep with you for a million pounds." Churchill then asked her if she would sleep with her for a single pound, to which she replied, "What do you think I am?" His reply was, "Well, we have already established what you are, and now we are simply negotiating the price."

 

There shouldn't be consequences. If a fan buys a piece of merchandise he gets for his money the piece of merchandise, not a right to anything more.

I'm sure no one buying something expensive from Harrods would expect to have an entitlement to information about Harrods' CEO's private life as a consequence of the transaction. The only difference is that Schumacher had fans, the CEO almost certainly doesn't, so no one is interested in having information about him/her. Would anyone claim that we should get information about the Harrods CEO if we wanted it?

 

Give me a break.

I write paragraphs about the theory and philosophy of my arguments, each time offering a different angle to the argument.

And your point over and over is simply, "No you are wrong." And you are calling me a troll? Geez.

 

This is actually a funny story. It looks like you are on some kind of mission . . . and I am not sure what it. Let me start by saying that I am honestly not trying to kick you in the balls. I would normally say that you are indifferent to branding, fame, etc. But I think your posture is more extreme than that. ("Extreme" is not pejorative, but descriptive here.) It seems that you are actively avoiding any branding or recognition of anything of note. And since I am interested in all facets of human behavior, I will keep writing.

I think you are underestimating the power of branding. For example . . .

So you are telling me that you don't have sneakers with a Nike Swoosh on the side? or a "U" for Underarmor. All your t-shirts have the Nike, Addidas or Reebok names/symbols removed. You have removed all emblems from your car--no Ford or Chevrolet symbols. When you go to the coffee shop and open your laptop, you obviously cover up the "dell" or "Apple" on your computer, lest a nearby patron would think you are endorsing a product.

When you go to the store--Selfridges perhaps (because you would never be caught in Harrod's)--and buy an article of clothing, you really don't leave the store with a Selfridges bag?

I am honestly not trying to kick you in the balls; I am simply suggesting that it takes a massive effort to avoid such symbols in our daily life. Modern commerce is hard-wired to brand items--everything from our coffee to our mattresses on which we sleep.

I am, however, interested in your story above. The driver asked you "Do you know who I am?" Did you answer "yes" because you obviously knew him?

 

Your example was irrelevant. You brought it up to cash out the claim that there are circumstances under which public figures should be compelled to divulge their health status -- except nothing about your example turned on the Secretary of Defense being a "public figure." The only thing at issue was that he was public employee in a position of authority. You could make an identical legal or moral argument about any DOD official with a security clearance who didn't happen to be famous.

This was not an example of exploring an extreme case as a thought experiment, but rather bringing up an unrelated situation in order to confuse the matter.

And again, what is your compelling personal interest in Schumacher's private health information?

 

Actually, no. A lower level employee without decision making power does not have the same obligations and responsibilities of the SecDef.

 

You are twisting the words again. I have to assume that you are doing it unintentionally, because you it does not make sense otherwise.

I didn't say I have a "right" to know. I said I am entitled to the information of a public figure. There is a difference. But there is no sense in taking time to explain it because it would require you to understanding concepts which have thus far evaded you.

I never said I had a compelling personal interest in his private health information. I said I'd like to know and as a member of the public I am entitled to information. I have equally said that the family is entitled to deny it.

+++++

Before there was some reference to a website about privacy--most of that was irrelevant. I have no problem in recognizing that Bill Clinton--even though he is a public figure--has the right to keep certain private medical information private--his much-rumored treatment for VD (several times) is one such fact that is rightly kept private.

On the other hand, when Paula Jones accused him of sexual assault, Clinton denied it. Jones then described certain aspects of Bill's 'member.' Namely she described it as being bent at a severe angle. In examining Clinton's medical records it was discovered that he had Peyronie's Disease during the time of Jones' claim.

In that case, the medical record was relevant. And in that case, the Judge did not seal the record.

 

I do not underestimate the power of branding, I just don’t submit to it when I can.
I am from a generation where not everything was branded and when people didn’t wear clothes with logos on; so I stick to that. It’s true that I avoid at all cost to wear anything with a logo: I don’t like it, and it’s not classy for me. Also, I don’t dress casual in jeans, T-shirts, sneakers, etc… so I don’t have to put up with all these logos. I wear a dark suit or trousers with a blazer, or a tweet jacket over a cotton shirt without any logo on them. In summer a short sleeve shirt, or an unmarket polo shirt with a beige trouser, perhaps.
I like things to be understated, if you see what I mean: nothing flashy, but of good quality.
When attending motor racing over the years, I saw team apparels becoming common when advertising was allowed on cars, but I have never been interested in adopting them.
First, I don’t go to watch motor racing to support a particular team, but to watch a race.
Second, I don’t see why I should pay to wear clothing that advertises a brand; instead they should pay me to wear their shirt!! I am not a free billboard.
Finally, I wouldn’t like to dress like some other “supporters” and be seen as part of a tribe, being associated with them and recognised as supporter of a team, or a driver, etc… That’s not me at all; I find that very vulgar. That takes your individuality away. Call me a snob if you like.
So, in answer to your questions, I do not patronise Nike, Addidas or Reebok; I invariably wear leather black shoes, never sport shoes.
Another thing, I hate baseball caps with a passion; they are so common these days. I would never wear one of those.
I hardly go shopping; my wife does it for me. She knows my tastes, chooses my clothes and rarely gets it wrong. She is like me; for her logos don’t mean a thing.