The Michael Schumacher Career/Injury/Recovery Thread

There are different types of "public figure", and you cite Bill Clinton. His type of public figure is one that is elected by and represents the people, and while he is doing that I believe it isn't unreasonable to expect to get information about him if that information relates to something that impacts on his ability to carry out the job he was elected to do.

Schumacher, on the other hand, is a completely different kind of "public figure". The public didn't elect him, nor did they directly pay him. He was someone doing a job, just like most of us, the difference being his job was a high profile one bringing fame and perhaps adulation. Actors and singers fall into the same category. I don't believe the public are entitled to information about someone just because they are famous.

 

At the time of his accident, Schumacher was even retired. Whilst reporting the accident was routine stuff, there is no obligation to keep the public informed of his condition.

Ronald Reagan was known to suffer from Alzheimer disease during his retirement, but once this was announced, I don't recall Nancy Reagan giving updates about his condition. Of course news of his death were made public.

 

Devil's advocate here - we all know the prognosis for Alzheimers. No guessing where his health was going.

 

I think most people also know the prognosis for severe brain trauma: survival as a cabbage first on a life support machine, often followed by death provoked by some complication. Just look at Jules Bianchi.
I think NeuroBeaker in his brief expose left us with no illusion on the subject.

 

I disagree. I don't think most people are exposed to traumatic brain injury, so they don't know. We're talking about the general public here. Most of them are not setting the world on fire. But I'd guess most everyone knows or has known someone with ALZ.

I had a friend injured racing motocross and was in a coma for two years. The family refused to pull the plug. One day, he simply woke up. He has bi-polar and anger management issues, which he did not have before, but he's otherwise normal. No one can explain it. Odd things can and do happen when involving the brain.

 

The Bill Clinton example was as irrelevant as the Ayrton Senna and Secretary of Defense examples. In none of these cases did (or would) being a "public figure" have anything to do with the release of private information. In Bill Clinton's case, the public was able to know those embarrassing details because Clinton was involved in a lawsuit. The same thing happens to unfamous litigants.

Recall that before this sideshow, Drive550PFB's original claim was that Schumacher's family owed him a status report because he had helped make them rich:

This same sentiment was echoed by others:

This, I submit, is the ugly side of fandom. You are imagining yourselves participants in a transaction -- or even an intimate relationship -- that never existed.

Statements of the kind "Schumacher's family shouldn't be surprised" are evasions. I'm sure the family is not surprised by fans' bad behavior. That's hardly an excuse for it.

Similarly, statements like "it's their right not to provide updates, but..." are cop outs. It is their right, and with good reason, and what it means to support the right to privacy is not to be petulant when someone chooses to exercise it.

 

There is no common meeting point over these two opinions. I'm of the opinion that every thing the Schumacher family has,beyond the average person,is due to the devotion and support of his fans and his talent. We deserve better. In fact,knowing nothing about his present condition,Michael probaby deserves better.

 

A behaviour not too dissimilar to stalking, IMO.

The so-called "fans" believe there is some sort of bond between them and MS because they used to cheer for him.

 

It's a bit like saying that anyone who did shopping for a long period at Wal-Mart is entitled to invade the Walton family, because he made them rich!
Never heard such a feable argument!

 

Other racing families who lost their driver felt differently, about their member's supporters. I considered that a classier act. But each to his own.

 

Personally I am grateful for the Schumacher family's handling of the situation. They deal with the 24 hour per day heartbreak of Michael's health issues. In so doing they spare his fans some measure of the anguish. I don't feel the need to know about or see the details of Michael's daily life. I know he, and they, have major problems. I am confident that everything possible is being done to help him. I also know that if there is good news to report they will share it. In the interim the image I have of Michael is of the grinning, happy guy I saw pulling on his race suit for a kart event after his retirement from F1. I suggest everyone else concentrate on their favorite image of Michael, continue to hope for the best, and respect the family's privacy.

 

+1

 

Well we have beaten this to death, and I will try to wrap it up.

With Reagan, not only did Nancy, but also Reagan himself issued a public statement on his Alzheimer's. If you recall, this was the "enter the twilight of my life" statement. Reagan, however did make public appearances at a park near his office in Century City. Reporters were nice in photographing him--but Nancy "traded" these opportunities to photograph Ronnie on a park bench--as long as the reporter/photographer did not try to interview him. It was a fair trade, in my opinion. The image of a gray haired Reagan smiling while enjoying the sunshine was really sweet.

And, to wrap this up, I made the statements about Clinton and SecDef to make a point. With very few narrow exceptions, public figures have little recourse against a story about them. The key here is whether they can sue for defamation if private information is disclosed. In most cases, they cannot win a suit. That is the basis of my comments--the law.

If you will note, all through this discussion I have said that MS's family is entitled to stay quiet, but I do not think it is the best course of action. I think that staying quiet often would lead to unwanted disclosure--using the example of Reagan above--if Nancy had been aggressive in trying to prevent pictures of Ronnie, then the Reporter/photographer may have been more aggressive in trying to talk to Ronnie. (which would be bad.) I fear the same with MS.

 

He got where he did because of his talent. He would have become a very rich man on that basis alone, even if he had not had a single fan.

What have the fans contributed towards "every thing the Schumacher family has"? We bought some merchandise. Well, we got what we paid for and we aren't entitled to anything in addition.

 

Interesting contrast. I used to represent a F-1 driver. In 2003 (maybe 2004), it was the 40th year of McLaren. At the Monaco Grand Prix, I was invited by this driver to come to the VIP section. When I walked in, Tag gave me a watch. Hugo Boss outfitted me with a suit. I was given various McLaren gifts--some of which didn't fit me and I gave them away. A couple of times I was in the pits. While in the pits, the media person at McLaren, asked me to take off my Rolex and she gave me a Tag to wear. After the race, I would give it back--but the intention was that if I was ever caught on camera--even for the shortest seconds of time, I would be wearing a Tag.

I don't know if you remember Marc Arnall, who was Hakkinen's physio (later he was Kimi's). Marc is the bald guy you used to see on camera all the time--probably because of his bald head. Marc was given a Tag at each race, because they KNEW he would be on camera. He has several Tags in his possession. He even has a gold Heuer (not a Tag) which has Mika Hakkinen's signature inscribed on its back.

Anyway, happy new year everyone. Here's hoping Michael improves in 2016. Maybe his condition is impossible . . . but . . . If anyone can do it, he can.

 

This notion "We own you, so you owe us" that some fans cling to is deeply alarming, I think.

 

So, you became a brand prostitute, just for the sake of entering the VIP area at Monaco.

I have been in situation where I received branded gifts from sponsors. I accepted them and later gave them away or auctioned them for charity. I never wore them.

I almost lost a sponsorship from Castrol once, because I refused to wear their shirt in the pits at Spa during the 24 hours. My point was that the drivers and mechanics should wear their Castrol shirt, but not me as the car owner.

Have you noticed that Lauda doesn't wear the Mercedes uniform like Toto Wolff and Paddy Lowe, and the rest of the team. Some resistance there? Also Lauda sport a baseball cap with his personal sponsor's name on it; his trademark now.

 

Lauda is something else - his story about swapping his trophies for washing his car had me in fits.

i'm probably one of the biggest Schuey fans EVER; and think I can run Fast Ian close. But I think that calling people brand prostitutes for whatever reason is uncalled for given MS's endorsing of even Magnat's crap car speakers...it takes two to tango.

I don't think it's correct to assume fans are some kind of fanatical nutcases and I don't subscribe to your point of view. Surely you know better than that.

I think Neurobeaker said it best, and all we can do is wish him well.

I'd like to wish you and this forum, lots of happiness and success in 2016.

Best,

Sammy

 

Nicely put. Happy New Year to you and my FChat friends!

 

It was done tongue in cheek.

"Brand prostitute" is just an expression like "shopping addict", or "work slave", or even "mercenary".

Not to be taken to the letter.

 

Yes, but this is not the thread for it. The tone for this thread was set as more respectful because of the delicate/serious subject matter and the distress of Schumacher's fans over his condition - you and I have recently talked about this. Your language has been pretty provocative throughout. I've been trying to decide if you're deliberately pushing the limits of what you can say to rile up folks or if you're just oblivious to feeling the room. Which is it?

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Sorry if my expressions have offended. I am probably too cynical.

OK, it wasn't probably done in good taste, and I should make amend for it.

I propose a voluntary absence from the forum for a period on one month.

What do you think?

Happy New Year, by the way!

 

If I thought an absence was necessary in this instance, I'd have applied one. Let's accept the apology, be mindful of the tone, and move on.

Happy New Year!

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Human nature interests me. I am not insulted by any of this. Surprised? Yes. Insulted? No.

Hope we all have a better 2016. In many ways 2015 was one ugly ***** of a year.

 

I used to think that it's best that the family kept mum about the situation.

Yes, on the negative side, we have the press, who will make up any stories just to sell, and this, is really damaging. A few days/weeks ago, a rumour surfaced that Michael was able to walk again. Of course I didn't believe it.

I've been following Schumi's career for years and years. There have been ups and downs, but that man convinced me that through hard work, patience, everything is possible. The fact that he's so low profile, humble (i met him twice in person), is another massive thing.

On the positive side, I feel Corinna should just reveal what is actually going on. We have been playing the guessing game for two years now, it's nothing to do with whether they owe us any explanation.

They don't owe us anything. But, i feel, if Corinna comes clean, it actually helps more, as we, as fans, religious or not, can somehow pray for him for a miracle recovery. I don't see the fact that there's something to hide is making life better for them. Every other time Sabine is forced to deny some sorta report.

We, as fans, more less knows what's happening. I think, and as many here, knows, or rather assumes Michael is immobile, can't communicate, and probably is confined to a wheel chair.

But if that is black and white, we can probably only pray for his health, and for his family to go through this testing times. On paper, due to his age, I don't think a recovery is possible. But, miracles do happen. He might recover in 10 years time, maybe 60-65%.

But, as true fans, we are all hoping for the best for him. Revealing how/what is actually happening isn't going to change his condition from bad to worse, or vice versa.

DO i think they should reveal the current situation? Yes.

Do i think they owe us anything? No.

Lastly, i don't mean to offend anybody with my religious view/post.