Let’s get one thing out of the way really quickly: I think Martin Brodeur is an excellent goaltender,

arguably one of the greatest of all time. I believe he ‘earned’ the right to start against the United

States on Super Sunday: his credentials, along with a strong performance against Switzerland paved

the way for Brodeur to start.

This blog post isn’t about Martin Brodeur. What it is about, though, is Damien Cox and his love

affair with Martin Brodeur and the subsequent behavior that sprung out of said affair.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Damien Cox.

Why am I writing about him? Well, it stems from some comments Cox made on Twitter and in print in the

wake of Canada’s loss to the Americans on Sunday. He doesn’t think that Martin Brodeur was handled

properly and that Roberto Luongo shouldn’t be getting the start.

No, seriously. He flat out said he’s ‘not a fan of Luongo.’

This is all well and good. Everyone has opinions regarding Team Canada. Stamkos should be on! Pronger

should be off! Start Fleury! Etc. Were it just Damien Cox voicing his opinion, that would be fine and

expected for someone like him.

It becomes a problem, though, when someone like Cox has co-written Martin Brodeur’s autobiography and

goes go off on a childish rant in defense of his professional accquaintance.

I think that Cox himself knows that, as he penned a missive to his critics. They included folks like

Jason Botchford, of the Vancouver Province, who merely Tweeted ‘It’s worth noting today that Damien

Cox wrote Martin Brodeur’s autobiography.’ William Houston, a former Globe and Mail writer, also

chimed in on Cox’s defense of Brodeur, suggesting ‘maybe Cox has a man crush on Brodeur’ before

pointing out that Brodeur played badly against the Americans. This is in addition to the hordes of

idiots (myself included!) who Tweeted at Cox regarding his words.

It’s pretty unusual for a journalist to address his detractors: writing for the public means you’ll

always have people disagreeing with you and if you spent your time arguing with them you’d never get

anything else done. Cox argued that the debate about the goalies is more interesting than his

reasons. Fair enough, but when you overreact to a goaltending decision the way Cox did, you have to

wonder where he is coming from. Especially when you don’t directly address your fellow scribes who

are taking the time to criticize you, something which Cox has done in the past.

http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2009/06/completed-homework.html

Am I being ridiculous here? Well, here is the total sum of what Cox had to say about Brodeur’s

goaltending in the American game: http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/769390–pothole-on-road-

to-gold

‘Against the U.S., however, Crosby and Brodeur both had games that won’t make it into their home

highlight reels.’

No mention of the weird baseball swing Brodeur made that directly led to a goal against. No mention

of his decision to try and engage in a shoving match with an American player instead of trying to

play the puck, a decision which led to the game winning goal for Team USA. Both noteworthy events,

both totally possible talking points.

Conversely, here is what Cox had to say about Luongo, who didn’t play a single second in Canada’s

loss to the States:

‘The expectation in many corners is that Roberto Luongo will get the nod in goal against the Germans.

The problem with that is, assuming Canada wins, sticking with Luongo would make sense even though all

he’d have on his resumé would wins over Norway and Germany going into a do-or-die match with Ovechkin

and Co.

“That’s not my call, buddy,” Luongo said when asked whether he believed he would start. “I’m here for

Team Canada. I’m not here for Roberto Luongo.”‘

Seems a little out of whack. Heck, Cox devoted more space to talking about Alexander Ovechkin, who

plays on Russia, for those unawares, than he did Brodeur.

But things got really weird on Monday. Cox penned one article,

http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/769893–move-to-make-luongo-no-1-badly-played-by-babcock

saying the move to make Luongo the starter was a bad decision. He claimed that Brodeur feels he was

‘blamed unfairly’ and ‘undoubtedly disrespected’ by Mike Babcock. Did you notice that there were no

direct quotes in that link? It’s because Cox was speculating, yet dressed it up as though he knew

what precisely was on Brodeur’s mind.

Radio broadcaster Greg Brady, who co-hosts the Bill Watters show on AM 640 in Toronto, noted this. He

also brought it up in an interview that he conducted with Cox yesterday. When asked if he had spoke

with Brodeur he got really evasive and tried to deflect the question, saying Brodeur is ‘classy’

before finally saying no, that he hadn’t while claiming ‘I know that’s how he feels.’

http://www.640toronto.com/HostsandShows/BillWatters/Audio.aspx

Cox then went on in his article making comments that Luongo is a choker and essentially piled on him.

Again, no real mention of Brodeur’s play or why Mike Babcock might be making this decision. Readers

were left to speculate as to why Mean Mike Babcock is picking on Marty.

Then, Cox penned ANOTHER article, talking about the ‘great debate’ surrounding Canada’s goaltending.

http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/769975–cox-great-debate-as-canada-calls-on-luongo He starts

off by criticizing Luongo’s butterfly style and how Team Canada will have to ‘adjust’ to him. Still

no mention of what could have possibly led to Babcock’s decision to sit Brodeur, just a full on

attack on Luongo.

He then turns his attention to Babcock, saying that he should be ‘roasted on the spit of Canadian

hockey opinion’ if his decision to start Luongo is the wrong one. Yes, even if Russia suffocates

Canada’s offense and they lose 1-0, it’ll be Babcock and Luongo’s fault.

So, that makes 3 full articles published by the Star and one radio interview discussing how Cox feels

about Brodeur, with the only criticisms levelled at Luongo being the quoted piece I listed above,

with the rest being an all out attack on Luongo and Babcock.

Overkill? Apparently not, as Cox also felt the need to white knight for Brodeur on Twitter. His

response to folks being critical of Marty? They don’t understand the game of hockey.

http://twitter.com/DamoSpin/status/9456040792 Very mature and level headed of a response.

So, yes, I think that Cox went way overboard in his defense of Brodeur. I also think highlighting the

fact that he wrote a book with Brodeur to be an important detail that would explain what other

journalists (Botchford, Houston and Brady) took notice of.

I think that Cox’s defense of Brodeur also extends to how he treats other subjects. Take Brian Burke.

Cox rarely has nice things to say about the Canucks, even on a good day. (I found two instances of

Cox talking positively about the Canucks: one was praise for Henrik Sedin leading the NHL scoring

race, the other was praising the Canucks for sweeping the Blues last year in the playoffs.) There

were his comments about Burrows and Auger, but he’s also taken snipes at the Canucks for signing

Sundin and the Canucks past history, all the while claiming that Toronto doesn’t care about Vancouver

or the Canucks at all.

Things got really ugly in 2004. That was the year when Todd Bertuzzi tried to take Steve Moore’s head

off. Cox had a field day with it, rightfully decrying Bertuzzi’s actions and going on and on about

fighting and ‘the Code’ and everything else. Funnily enough, Cox also had a personal connection to

the Moore/Bertuzzi incident, as he had met Moore years ago. No, I’m not implying that Cox wrote about

Moore because he met him, it’s just an observation. http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/189616

Anyway, Cox had lots and lots of things to say about Bertuzzi. He also had things to say about Marc

Crawford, saying he was ’smirking’ as events unfolded on the ice. Oh yeah, and he also had something

to say about Brian Burke, who he described as ‘overcaffeinated’ and that Burke was running ‘an

emotional, aggressive team’ insinuating that he had a part in what happened with Moore.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=cox_damien&id=2790395 Cox also gave Burke grief

for comments he made about Moore’s health, saying ‘It’s hard to forget in the days immediately

following the incident, for example, hearing Burke dismiss the severity of Moore’s injuries and claim

that he’d be back playing in a matter of days.’ http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/283469

Interestingly, despite making a point of tying Burke to Bertuzzi, Cox’s recent ruminations on Brian

Burke have been nothing but rosy recently. I wonder what could have possibly changed his opinion on

things?

Despite blasting Burke for having an ‘emotional, aggressive team’ with the Canucks, Cox talked about

those same qualities in glowing terms with regards to the Leafs, talking about the fighting majors

the Anaheim Ducks (Burke’s previous team) had, and going on about grit.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Hockey/article/537515 In an article on the eve of Burke signing with

the Leafs, nary a negative word was found about Burke. http://www.thestar.com/article/543010 It

should be noted that Burke has been known to be adversarial with the media and has refused to

accomodate some media types. The most notable being flaps he had with Vancouver radio broadcaster

David Pratt and Vancouver journalist Tony Gallagher. Not saying that the two are related, but, well,

you have to wonder why there is no mention of Bertuzzi/Moore in relation to Burke, considering it was

one of the most high profile incidents he’d ever been involved in.

The amount of fawning Cox has done over Burke now that he’s the Leafs GM is comical. Take this

article, from last year. http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/698302 The Bertuzzi Incident?

Burke had ‘lived through’ as though he were a modern day Job. He praises Burke for making the Leafs

‘destined to be one of the NHL’s goonier teams, a club dominated by North American talent and

muscle’, aspects which he found deplorable with the Canucks.

Could Cox have changed his tune when Burke became Leafs GM? Could this be another instance of Cox

showing preferential treatment due to his relationship with a subject? They’re good questions, for

sure.

Finally, let’s talk about Roberto Luongo. Cox’s opinions on Luongo have also shifted and swayed. Last

night on Twitter he was outright hostile, commenting twice about Luongo ‘flopping around.’ Amazing

how focused Cox gets on goaltending when it doesn’t involve Brodeur.

But let’s look at things a little more indepth. In November of 2008, Cox wrote that ‘even after

winning another Vezina last season, he was going to have to play well this season’ and pointed out

that Brodeur’s injury woes has put in doubt that Brodeur would be an automatic decision for Canada’s

#1. http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/533286

Over 3 years ago, Cox wrote that Luongo was ‘a player who could handle major expectations as he’d

done while playing for Canada at world championship tournaments.’

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/170976

In April of last year, Cox noted that this was Luongo’s chance to ‘knock out the champ’ (Brodeur)

when talking about the Olympic starting seat. Cox also mentioned ‘much the same was said last fall

when Brodeur went down with a torn bicep’ neglecting to inform anyone that it was he who was saying

that. Also of note in that article was that this wasn’t the first time Luongo has gone in relief of

Brodeur: in 2004 Luongo ‘rescued’ Team Canada with a 37 save OT effort at the World Cup when Brodeur

was out with an injured hand.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/626617

So, Luongo finally has a chance to shine. To wrest the ‘throne’ away from Brodeur. Cox did a great

job of talking it up over the past 2 years, only now that the moment is here, he’s pitching a huge

fit. He will not go quiet into the night. What happened?

My guess? Cox knew that there was very little chance that Luongo (or anyone else, for that matter)

was going to be anointed as the #1 goalie for Canada for the 2010 Olympics over Brodeur. As a result,

he could safely speculate away, knowing that Brodeur’s job was safe. Then, when things got ugly and

Brodeur’s job actually was in jeopardy did Cox’s true colors emerge and we got three over-the-top

articles defending Brodeur’s honor, a radio interview and some nonsense on Twitter.

I also think that Cox is not above acting unprofessionally, which is how I view his white knighting

of Brodeur. It wouldn’t be a first for him, either, as there was his Tweet which cut down former

Islanders VP Chris Botta, saying: ‘beware outta work P.R. guys scratching and blogging, pretending to

be journalists.’ I don’t know what sort of personal disagreement exists between Botta and Cox, but

it’s yet another example of Cox’s personal biases and emotions leaking into the material he presents

to the public in a gross, ugly fashion.

So, no, Damien Cox, I have to disagree. I do think your affiliation with Martin Brodeur is of

importance, given the size of your reaction and the rapid 180 you’ve made on Roberto Luongo as goalie

of Team Canada. I also think that this isn’t out of the character for you, as based on your reversal

in opinion on Brian Burke once he became GM of the Leafs. No one is begrudging you your opinion in

the Luongo/Brodeur ‘debate’, but what people are questioning is your motivations for doing so. The

lack of criticism on Brodeur’s play, while piling it on thick for any of Marty’s detractors, coach

Mike Babcock and Roberto Luongo also speak to this.

Perhaps if you had given some consideration to both Brodeur’s positives and negatives when evaluating

him folks wouldn’t feel this way.