It's not often that you hear the ICC - or any governing body in sport for that matter - receiving praise, but the way they've handled the case against the three Pakistanis accused of spot-fixing is worthy of applause.

Since taking over as the ICC's chief executive Haroon Lorgat appears to have brought a sense of calm to the way the organisation reacts to the game's challenges, and that was highly evident here.

When the allegations first arose tensions ran high. The very foundations on which cricket is built were threatened and those who love the game wanted retribution because their faith had been shaken.

But as cut and dried as the case appeared when presented to the public by the News of the World - particularly given the suspicions that had floated around Pakistan cricket for so long - making a watertight case against the trio was never a formality.

The ICC realised as much, went through the correct processes in setting up an independent tribunal, and allowed the necessary time period not only for both sides to build their case but for tensions to simmer down.

By the time a decision was announced on Saturday there had been plenty of time for everyone to approach it with an objective mind, and the sentences handed down by the committee headed by Michael Beloff certainly seem strong but fair.

As the orchestrator of the no-balls Salman Butt gets the longest ban, while Mohammad Amir is shown some leniency for the fact that he was young and impressionable.

With the suspended parts of the sentences taken away they were effectively the minimum sentence (five years) under the ICC's Code of Conduct, but it's still a strong sentence given the ramifications for the players involved.

Butt and Mohammad Asif have effectively had their careers ended by the bans (although there is a chance that Butt could return to the game at the age of 31, albeit as a tarnished figure), but Amir will be just 23 when he becomes eligible once again.

It means we may yet see the left-armer mature into the fast bowling great that his potential suggests, and yet the ban is heavy enough - even though it is the minimum sentence - that he is highly unlikely to entertain the likes of Mazhar Majeed again.

Coupled with the criminal charges you would think the judgements are strong enough to deter cricketers from accepting advances from bookies, but that is only one half of the equation. It's one thing to be afraid of the consequences but more important is the fear of getting caught, and it's worth noting that the three players would have got away with it all if it weren't for a newspaper with an appetite for creating stories rather than finding them.

This case has confirmed that cricket is tailor-made for corruption, and so policing it is crucial. Yet as Peter May pointed out on Friday, there's been no indication of how the ICC will improve in this area beyond 'educating' the younger players.

We have the strong verdict that was called for, but the battle is far from over.