Recent images of a stern Chris Cairns walking to and from court wearing his all-black ensemble of trousers, overcoat and scarf to defend himself against the elements symbolised a man also determined to defend his honour against accusations of match-fixing. His demeanour in more recent times is in stark contrast to the days when he played for the New Zealand test team, dressed in all white, with a big smile on his face.
Actually, he was probably frustrated then as well.
Although the mind was willing, the body wasn't and although he played 62 tests, he missed 55 during an injury-interrupted career. Even his last match was frustrating: bowling four overs for 24 and no wicket, scoring a nine-ball duck, and missing the stumps two times. Despite being referred to as the "best all-rounder in the world", in my view he never really fulfilled his potential.
Even his short career with the now defunct Indian Cricket League was controversial, with the match-fixing Twitter accusations.
Although Cairns comprehensively won his drawn-out libel case against Lalit Modi, the case has drawn further shadows over cricket's once gentlemanly reputation. Are there any gentlemen left in cricket?
Traditionalists often refer to cricket as the gentleman's sport but that label is well and truly dead: gentleman do not sledge, cheat, use bodyline bowling tactics, have temper tantrums or appeal excessively.
These days sportsmanship (the essence of behaving like a gentleman) has been replaced by gamesmanship: the art or practice of winning games by questionable measures without actually violating the rules.
This implies that intimidating the opposition physically and verbally is encouraged, whacking a player in the nether regions when bowling and causing excruciating agony no longer requires an apology, and ignoring team protocol to go out and get boozed are all implicitly accepted aspects of modern-day cricket.
The problem with gamesmanship is that the "rules" in sport are often easily broken and don't necessarily apply to on-field behaviour.
Doping and match-fixing are rife in the sports world so it might be assumed that Chris Cairns, like many other top players, may have been exposed to such temptations and pressures.
Although the cynics might say all the libel case did was prove that Cairns (dressed in dapper attire) appears to be more of a Eurocentric gentleman than Lalit Modi, the cigarette-smoking, hand-shaking, open-shirted man we saw portrayed in the media, the judge found wholly in Cairns' favour. As for Cairns' off-the-pitch character being above and beyond reproach, that, in my opinion, is another matter.
I can't help but question the credibility of a man who professes his undying and eternal love for wives number one, two and three on the covers of women's magazines.
He feels, and so the court has decreed, that he has proven his innocence and has redeemed himself, but I believe New Zealanders tend to judge a man (be they a gentleman or sportsman) more by their actions than their words.
If Cairns wants to win people over following the libel case, he needs to put this drama to the side. Lay low, stay out of the limelight, work diligently, put in the hard yards and prove you are a gentleman, not only in the courtroom but in life itself.
