The Michael Schumacher Career/Injury/Recovery Thread

I think their silence is eloquent enough !!!

MS's career is over, now he is back to the bosom of his family that cares for him. They don't seem to welcome public intrusion in what's left of his life.

Can't you guy not understand that No means No ?

None of your arguments is reasonable. Endorsing a sponsor's product never meant that the privacy of the individual was open for public consumption. Having millions of fans never meant they have a right of information about your private life once you retire. Celebrities mostly like to keep those out of view.

 

Well said.

 

As always.....thanks Beaker!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You are arguing that Schumacher's high profile as a product endorser entitles you to knowledge of his medical condition:

Of course his family knows that they "could" come forward with a statement. They have chosen not to.

You're didn't argue that the family "could" describe his condition. You argued that they "should" because the curious public also happen to be paying customers who made him (and them) rich.

You suggested that there was something transactional about his public appearances, and now the public is owed something in return for their attention. They are not. This is a moral illusion.

If Mrs. Schumacher doesn't want me to know her husband's condition, then I don't want to know. If I received his medical records in the mail by accident I wouldn't open them. If millions of Schumacher's fans go to their graves never knowing whether he could walk or see or swallow after his ski accident, there isn't one thing wrong with that.

 

+1000

I couldn't word it better. Bravo !!

This insistence of the right to know and to invade privacy is really sickening to me.

 

Obviously, you two have a great deal of emotion in this.

I will try to make only one point and it is entirely my opinion . . .

Given that MS is a public figure, it is a legitimate criticism of him (and in his absence, those who are 'handling' him) that this public figure has chosen to now fade into the woodwork and hide behind a claim of privacy. Certainly that is their right, but it is my right to be critical of them for doing so--especially given the very public nature of MS's career.

Just look at the information available with Senna. We have videos/photos of his car, his helmet, the flag he carried in the car when he died. We have lengthy descriptions about the support rod that pierced his head above his eye and the manner in which he died. I have not seen any criticism of that from anyone here.

 

I have absolutely no emotion attached to this, just plain common sense.

The insistence of some to insist they have a right to know the conditions of Michael Schumacher following his accident, against the expressed wishes of his family is rather bad taste, to say the least. Using the excuse that he was a public figure to defend the claim that details of his recovery should be communicated, is absolutely wrong.

Outside their sphere of activity (sport, show business, politics, media, arts, etc... celebrities are allowed to be protected from preying eyes, and they privacy must be paramount, no matter what.

If Michael Schumacher's wife and family have decided to protect him with silence, and not communicating anything about him, it's their right, and no one should criticise them.

Most of the information and details about Senna's death was published by the ghoulish media, more interested iin sensationalism than in respect for the man. Senna's family didn't release anything. That was a rather horrible bit of media reporting that does not credit to the photographs and the press in general.
We could have done without that intrusion as well.

 

That is completely wrong !!!


Seeing sponsor patches on his racing suit doesn't entitle you to invade his privacy EVER !!!

 

Senna was mortally injured in public, during a race, in a manner that had great implications for sporting regulations as well as a wide-ranging criminal investigation. That's why that information is public. It's not because he was a "public figure" nor did it come out by hounding his family for gory details.

A more apt analogy would be the hundreds of other famous people who also choose to live privately, or even in seclusion, some of whom may be suffering from illness. Are you also critical of them for choosing to "hide behind a claim of privacy?" Do they also owe the public "a substantive, legitimate update" of their medical conditions?

 

One can say that, given the tremendous amount of support by the fans over the years, it is this sudden and complete lack of transparency that is in "bad taste."

 

I don't feel "entitled" to a medical update. For any reason.

Nor do I feel I really need one after two whole years.

Although I wish him all the best.

Matt

 

Thank you. I completely agree.

Let me put this a different way.

If this were the President of the US, and there could be a problem affecting his job performance, would the public have the right to know? Of course. No sensible person would argue against that.

How about a congressman? I believe we have a right to know there too.

Now, let's make the example a little harder . . . let's say that we suddenly discover that America's top news anchor (a public figure) has gone on a crusade against a particular piece of legislation before Congress. He seems to be out of character because this 'neutral' anchor man has turned highly partisan.

Maybe some crack reporter has found that this news anchor's wife has early stage Alzheimer's. And the legislation cuts Alzheimer's funding. That would explain it--and that information is rightly within the public's view.

How about this . . . let's say that Bernie Ecclestone suddenly comes out for certain microprocessor to be put in the F-1 cars to pinpoint turn-in angles on the front tires. And, we later learn that the same microprocessor is being used in laser surgery to remove brain tumors. And that the increased dollars F-1 puts in this microprocessor will allow the laser surgery to be more precise--giving Bernie a fighting chance, in our example.

My point is this . . . when a public figure is involved, there is an expectation on the part of the pubilc with regard to information. It is neither crass nor in bad taste for the public to seek such information. You may not want to have the information, but those who do are not crass or guilty of bad taste.

 

Whichever way you try to wrap it, I won't buy it !!


I fully support Michael Schumacher's family in their effort to shelter him from unwanted attention, by not supplying any information about his condition and his recovery.

 

I find it amusing that everyone here is skirting something. Some are absolute in their belief that privacy is the main goal, and I think those of us who understand running a corporation might disagree. If the public were to find out the MS will never recover, never walk, never speak, and might possibly have no brain function close to normal, people would let it go. Along with letting it go, they stop buying MS items and the revenue stops.

MS doesn't still have a manager because HE is doing anything that needs managing. His manager is keeping the retail business moving along by controlling information flow. That's her job.

I would love to see even a partial recovery. I would love even more for him to recover completely and actually enjoy the rest of his life spending all the money he's made. But I also know what the odds are given his injuries and the amount of time that has passed.

 

Yes,said like it is. This is the 3rd year from the massive bilateral brain injuries. This will resolve soon.

 

So for you it's all about the money, eh? I doubt it.

Years after their deaths, fans still buy music and memorabilia of Elvis Presley, Eddie Cocharn, Buddy Holly and other rock celebrities. People still rush to Mantova to visit the Nuvolari Museum and buy souvenirs too; he died in 1953. There are so many examples of past celebrities, sportmen, entertainers still attracting the crowds, and selling $millions in merchandise long time after they died.

So, I doubt very much that fans would stop buying merchandise if they learned that MS is in coma, or spoonfed or receiving transfusions to stay alive, or that he is incontinent, or else.
Fans who idolise MS will buy his stuff him being dead or alive, and maybe even more dead, I predict. His popularity was/is such that he will probably stay the F1 driver with the biggest following; he was - after all - the most successful.

Of course his family has to take care of his commercial interests whilst he is alive, and after when they will inherit them. I don't find that having a manager dealing with that is strange at all. There is a brand to protect, a trademark to maintain, licenses to negotiate, copyrights to enforce, etc... There is a business to run, and account to keep, etc... Pricilla Presley did it when Elvis died, why couldn't Corine Schumacher do the same and cash on her husband celebrity?

That has nothing to do with the inquisitive demands of some followers to be kept informed of his condition, as if it was a right. This is a different issue that touch the right to privacy, medical confidentiality and the protection of a vulnerable individual against the potential intrusion of the media. The Schumacher family seems to have taken a ferm stance on this, and it's their choice to be respected, IMO.

 

For me personally, not at all. But I spent 20+ years in corporate America as a CFO and can assure you that for anyone receiving their paychecks from MS merchandising, it is absolutely about the money. That includes his manager.

 

Well, you may be right, but this is a different issue from the embargo on news.

Famous people are still worth a lot of money after their death if their legacy is aggressively marketed. MS wouldn't be different, IMO.

 

Yes and no. Memory is getting shorter. Our society is more on demand. And fans of superstars age and die as well as their heroes. I see this all the time in publishing. Used to, an author could release one book every 12-24 months and maintained a huge fan base. Now, studies show authors wanting to get a foothold in today's market need to publish three or more books a year to gain audience share. And those old tried and trues are losing market to those that produce books quicker.

Everything is being sped up so that we can force more life into the decreasing amount of personal time we have. For instance, I record all the television shows I watch so that I can fast forward through commercials. Saves me a good 20 minutes for every hour-long show.

It's a mentality that is not going away.

 

But it has been done (this way) before....
Howard Hughes comes immediately to mind.

Other hugely rich folks (Monaco, and Russian Mafia) for example, easily can "buy" the invisibilty, from the ever searching Public Eye.

I see it as a period in which we can all "have hope", and offer whatever spiritual support one feels inclined to do.

It's certainly too late, to do that for Sonny Bono.
I have stayed off of my snow skis since Schumi's fall, but I think this year, it's time to move on with life.
Exactly like his racing, there's an assumption of risk, in the sport (and he always loved it, during his winter break)

I hope, sincerely, we will one day see Mike again.
But as we knew when we started down this road, if ever, it will be a long, long time.

These snippets of news from "those who really know", Todt, and Montezumelo....that's the reality of it all.

Ya'll quit sniping, at each other......I am out of pictures!

I, personally, would be heart broken if the paparazzi was to infiltrate the circle and publish a picture of him at less than the best he could present.

Wait, until he can wave, smiling, from a balcony.
We can hope that day someday comes.

 

I think that's what Schumacher's family wants to avoid at all cost, and there is nothing mischivious in that. The same that they probably don't want "news" about his condition to leak from his entourage, his helpers, etc...

 

I don't see the memory and the interest about Michael Schumacher vanish after his demise.
As I said, memorabilia are still sold about famous people like Tazio Nuvolari, Napoleon, Ludwig II of Bavaria, Rudoplh Valentino, Carlos Gardel, and many others well after their death.

 

I totally disagree. MS owes nothing to anyone. Likewise his family owes no one any information. I don't see how you are entitled to any information simply because he was a famous, public figure.

Quite a bit different. Senna died racing in F1. F1 fans, and drivers/teams, have a right to understand why and what can be done to prevent those kind of things in the future. Not to mention that there was a desire to ensure that there was no wrongdoing or negligence in his death. MS's tragedy happened on his own personal time, and was a freak accident.

 

I think, perhaps, that is what prompts more interest rather than less. A wreck on the track is something all racing fans can process, but the way this happened is a harder pill to swallow.

 

Sure...and I can understand the desire to know more about someone you have followed. What I don't understand is the idea that you are entitled to that information.