Whatever else Hansie Cronje has said and done over the past couple of years, one contradiction keeps slithering through: if the former South African captain really loves cricket as much as he professes, then why does he persist in putting the game through such agony.

Cronje's High Court challenge to his life ban in Pretoria this week is a case in point, if not the case in point. In none of the arguments presented by Cronje's legal team is there an acknowledgement that his behaviour over a long period was antithetical to the spirit of the game.

This was never more the case than when he offered Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams money to underperform in a one-day international in India. Cronje's contrition for this has extended to expressing regret for his actions but genuine remorse has been somewhat more difficult to find.

He has persisted to characterise his actions as a "mistake", worse, perhaps, than playing a rash shot in a tight moment, but nothing so serious as to warrant a life ban from the game.

On the face of it it is a harsh punishment, but he has not been quite so hard done by as he likes to pretend. There is nothing in the United Cricket Board ban to prevent him writing a newspaper column or giving his views on a game or a series in a television studio. The UCB don't want him in their grounds at least until after the 2003 World Cup and, let's be honest here, who could blame them.

A recurring nightmare for the UCB, Ali Bacher's World Cup Policy Committee and the International Cricket Council is the thought of two captains stepping out onto the Wanderers in 2003 for the toss for the World Cup final to be conducted by – Hansie Cronje.

The arguments of Cronje's lawyers in Pretoria were based on South African labour and constitutional law and, who knows, they may have found a loophole for him to slip through. Judgement has been reserved and both sides have been wary of predicting an outcome.

But at its heart, the Hansie Cronje affair is far less about South African law than it is about the spirit of the game. At least one school of thought believes that Cronje's only concern at the moment is with money (and he has not been slow to tell anyone who cares that his lawyers have cost him a packet. The irony that this is the consequence of his own behaviour appears to escape him).

At the same time, it cannot be denied that he has substantial support inside South Africa. Quite possibly a substantial portion of this support comes from those who were first drawn to the game by the glamour and drama of the 1992 World Cup. Certainly, they seem to believe that contrary to the cliché, Hansie Cronje is greater than the game.

Cronje's challenge suggests that this is what he thinks – it might be worth recalling that Cronje was but a few months old in 1970 when South Africa played its last pre-isolation series. Whatever the case, if Cronje has his ban overturned it will be a tragedy for all cricket and South African cricket in particular.

The ramifications are almost too ghastly to contemplate. Sanctions against South Africa could include suspension or expulsion from the ICC or the loss of the World Cup. All or any of these would change the form and the shape of cricket in the 21st Century.

Does Cronje really want this? Is there no one close to him capable of telling him as much? Has his sense of grievance or his desire for money and recognition warped his better judgement to a point where self-interest has taken over completely?

Banned or not, though, some things will not change. Cronje betrayed his team, his country and his sport when he allowed himself to be seduced by bookmakers. The best lawyers in the world can't alter that fact.

© CricInfo