A surprise, well, to no-one really considering the amount of blows he had absorbed in recent weeks. Indeed, the only reason no-one had really expected a statement, which certainly woke us up from a Sunday afternoon slumber, was that Vizer had appeared so unchecked by his critics it was beginning to seem as if he would continue his single-handed “20-point” crusade against the combined might of the entire sports world.

Given this, it is interesting to speculate what was the final tipping point.

Was it the loss of support from his vice-president Gian Franco Kasper, the Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations and International Ski Federation chief who seems an early contender to replace him, at least on a temporary basis? Was it the disaffiliation from several non-Olympic sports, including sambo, a discipline centred around Russia, the hoped-for location for so many SportAccord events? Or was it Lima’s withdrawal from hosting the SportAccord-run World Combat Games, the only setback he specifically referred to in his resignation statement?

More likely it was a combination of all of these and so many others, as the IOC showed a ruthless side in summoning a coalition of allies to its corner, doing little in a direct sense but quietly maneuvering to isolate Vizer once and for all.

Some have compared the case of Vizer with football’s Sepp Blatter, predicting how the resignation of the former shows how the latter will surely also eventually throw in the towel.

But this is completely missing the point.

For all his critics in the Western world, Blatter remains popular within the administrative heartland in which Presidential votes are won and lost. He is a disciple of the way sports politics works, the hotel lobby deals, geopolitical alliances and tit-for-tat exchange of favours, not to mention the charisma and charm to captivate his targets. Vizer, on the other hand, broke all of the rules, bluntly going public with an astonishing tirade that was as rash and unwise as it was also brilliant and refreshing.

In his departing letter, Vizer claimed he had attempted to “open a door that had been closed for a century”.

"Today, the system working behind the doors is dictated by nobility titles or family inherited titles, or by members appointed for life,” he continued. ”I hope that in the future, the basic criteria of the system will be dictated by the achievements in sport, professionalism, performances, fair-play, transparency and the courage to express the truth."

This certainly echoes what a lot of people think about FIFA, but is it fair about the IOC? The general view, expressed by figures including British Royal heir Prince William, also President of the English Football Association, is that FIFA today is in a similar mess to the IOC at the time of the Salt Lake City bribery scandal in 1998.

Since then the IOC have made giant strides, it is claimed, with the censure of host city visits for IOC members, the introduction of age limits and - most importantly - the imminent arrival of a new President in Jacques Rogge all helping to do this.

A generation on the IOC is indeed a more democratic body, more open, accountable and effective. Yet neither is it perfect, and if it was under the same sort of scrutiny as FIFA, essentially from a pack of unrelenting British journalists aided by the muscle of the United States law, unsavoury elements could still appear.

Under Thomas Bach, the IOC has done much that is good, increasing female representation on its various Commissions and panels, for example. But like FIFA, at its heart it is not a completely democratic organisation, and the way in which all 40 Agenda 2020 recommendations were steamrolled through at last December’s Session in Monte Carlo was hardly a true forum for debate and consultation.

And neither were the reform measures particularly strong or radical. When Vizer’s resignation statement pinged into my inbox yesterday, I was halfway through writing a report on the amended composition of the IOC Commissions. When returning to this a while later, I felt there was a clear contrast between the strong words in Vizer’s statement and the wishy-washiness of the IOC release.

“To better reflect its role in the promotion of equal opportunities for girls and women to participate in, and benefit from sport and physical activity,” one particularly memorable section read, “the Woman and Sport Commission will be renamed the Women in Sport Commission”.

That will certainly reassure all those groups campaigning for better-still female representation.

All the other changes, which included the somewhat sad demise of the Philately, Numismatic and Memorabilia Commission, were of a similar vein.

I know his manner of speaking was wrong but I can’t help hoping that, even now he has departed from SportAccord, some of Vizer’s proposals, particularly those involving the introduction of Olympic prize money, do not die away completely, as they were ideas that were genuinely radical and different.

The IOC focus today switched to the race for the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, for which the Evaluation Commission report has been released. In comparison with the Commission changes, the 137-page survey was an enjoyable read, quick to criticise both bids and, far from being isolated in its sports administration bubble, going into depth about how each will affect and be affected by wider environmental, economic and political forces.

Some will criticise the relatively few mentions of human rights concerns, considering the race pits Kazakhstan against China, although “independent reports” have been consulted and firm guarantees sought. While the affordable nature of the two budgets are praised, the fact one of the bids has omitted the cost of a high speed railway so central to its success, because it was supposedly “planned anyway”, is more troubling, something the report notes but neglects to give an opinion about.

For the IOC as for Beijing, it is convenient to ignore this so as to avoid the negative headlines like those seen ahead of Sochi 2014, with its widely reported $51 billion (£34 billion/€47 billion) associated spending figure. But it is hardly an example of a fully open, honest and transparent approach.

The race for 2022 appears one the IOC are trying to mop out of the way as quickly as possible, so they can move on to the more ostensibly appetising battle for the 2024 Summer Games. Yet if, as expected, the Chinese capital is declared the winner over Almaty in Kuala Lumpur on July 31, lingering criticisms will surely follow about human rights, environmental damage and lack of snow.

Of course, as is clear with FIFA, we in the West cannot always transplant our democratic moral high ground onto the rest of the world and while countries like China and Kazakhstan are less open societies than some, the IOC is on the whole correct in insisting how it "has to respect" the laws of a sovereign state.

With Boston, Rome, Paris and Hamburg among the bidders in the 2024 race, that one will be different sort of contest, but there will be many challenges nonetheless even if they are of a different kind.

Problems for the IOC are far smaller fry than those engulfing FIFA, with Vizer a clearly easier opponent to swat away than the FBI.

But while he has has personally become a martyr to the cause, he has shone a light onto the organisation. It is therefore going to take more than releases about Commissions changing names to convince the world that the IOC under Thomas Bach is as much of a force for good as it claims to be.