NO ONE can be happy when an extremely talented young man finds himself in deep and potentially career-ending trouble. And, in the context of the West Indies, the sorrow is perhaps far more cutting when the person involved is a sublime cricketing talent.

Such is the frustration that Jamaicans, in particular, and West Indians, more broadly, have had to endure in the wild, roller-coaster existence of Marlon Samuels, who, this week, was banned for two years for conduct which a disciplinary committee felt could bring himself or the game into disrepute.

It is not clear whether Samuels will appeal the verdict, but whatever he decides, we find it an affront that the 'spinners' and apologists have attempted to cast the verdict as a statement of inadequacy on the part of the tribunal rather than on the behaviour of the cricketer. They also play heavily on the fact that the ruling was by majority decision.

The tribunal

For the record, the tribunal that heard the case included Dr Lloyd Barnett, the eminent Jamaican constitutional lawyer; Justice Adrian Saunders, a former justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme and Appeal Courts, who is now a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice; Professor Aubrey Bishop, the head of the department of law at the University of Guyana, and Richie Richardson, the former West Indies cricket captain.

The matter stemmed from last year's phone tap by Indian police of a suspected bookmaker, with whom Samuels concedes he had a friendship and innocently gave information, which he deemed harmless.

Samuels was found guilty of breaching rule 4 (viii) of the International Cricket Council's code of conduct, a clause that prevents players from receiving reward, financial or otherwise, for information on teams, the ground and similar pertinent information. Samuel was acquitted of the more serious charges of actually bringing the game into disrepute; he did bet on cricket, underperform or induce others to do these things.

Defining episode for Samuels

The tribunal, which is to provide a full, written report of its findings, said that had the rules allowed it, its preference would have been a suspended sentence. Maybe that would have been appropriate.

Hopefully, though, this a defining episode for Samuels - beyond cricket, but in his life. For all his talent, Marlon Samuels remains a boy-man; someone who remains arrogantly juvenile, seemingly incapable of either understanding or coming to terms with his own talent. In that regard, he may mirror an image of a generation of politically and culturally estranged West Indians, about whom social scientists ponder so much. For this group, talent is a personal asset, a mere gift possessed by minstrels.

Jamaicans, unwittingly, perhaps, abetted in arresting Samuels' development. We not only forgave his many alleged disciplinary indiscretions, but usually cast any accuser in the role of villain.

On a better path

Perhaps we needed to understand that Samuels, like many other young and talented West Indians, thrust into the limelight of celebrity, but short on life skills, needed help and, sometimes, tough love. Jamaican authorities and West Indies cricket may need to develop such a project. For, to paraphrase CLR James, who do you know of cricket if only cricket you know?

It is a shame that this has happened at a time of glimmer that Samuels may have begun to understand himself. This week's debacle could be the start of putting his life on a better path - and many runs from his bat.