KINGSTON (Jamaica) (AFP) - The two lawyers that represented Marlon Samuels at the West Indies Cricket Board's disciplinary hearing to determine his links with an alleged Indian bookmaker intend to challenge his two-year suspension from the game. Jamaican attorneys K. Churchill Neita and Delano Harrison believe that an application for judicial review stands a realistic chance of success and they intend to pursue it actively. "From the outset, we wish to make it clear that we proposed to challenge the findings of the majority (3-1) by way of judicial enquiry, as we believe a most grave injustice has been done by their finding of our client's liability of one of the International Cricket Council's disciplinary offences," the two lawyers said in a news release on Saturday. Samuels was charged with receiving the benefit of the provision of hotel accommodation to the value of 1,238.00 dollars from a suspected bookie Mukesh Kochchar or his associates which could bring him or the game of cricket into disrepute under the ICC's Code of Conduct. But he was cleared of another charge of passing confidential team information regarding the West Indies opening bowlers in the first One-day International against India which was played on January 21 last year at Nagpur to the bookie. The lawyers noted there was a need to clarify "many misunderstandings and misconceptions" that arose from Samuels' hearing before the WICB's disciplinary committee, headed by Justice Adrian Saunders, a leading Caribbean jurist, in St. Lucia on May 9. The lawyers indicated the evidence in the hearing was that the hotel bill paid for Samuels was a loan which was to be repaid to someone Samuels considered a friend and father figure. They also highlighted that the evidence in the hearing was that Kochchar was not a bookmaker. The lawyers also pointed out that Samuels only needed a loan because money which he had expected to earn from a contract to participate in a television reality show did not materialise. They added that the loan arrangement occurred two weeks after the two-way limited-overs series between India and West Indies had ended and would not have arisen had Samuels not stayed on to fulfil the television contract. Neita and Harrison also outlined that the WICB's disciplinary committee "agreed unreservedly" with Samuels' defence "that there has not been proved against Samuels any element. . .or corruption". "They found 'no basis upon which to find that Samuels acted dishonestly or in a corrupt manner'," the two lawyers said.