For a senior cycling administrator to sit on WADA makes total sense as cycling is one of the key sports that WADA needs to have on board to implement its program and succeed in its stated mission (if you believe it has this in its best interest - I do). So nothing unusual or corrupt in this.
However, with cycling now so controversial, and the pendulum swinging away from the general belief that "it was only about USPS and LA (eg. limited terms of reference in Coates enquiry that Fahey refers to), it's all cleaner now", towards more fall out and potentially serious damage via a Lance admission, Bruyneel, Padua, new AICAR testing, UCI and national fed investigations, WADA (presumably Fahey) has chosen to remain at the moral high ground and continue to be part of leading the change in anti-doping.
Hence the dissociation of Pat. He is spent. Gone. Too much part of the problem. Just like Shane Sutton is spent at Sky. Just like Rabo opted out of sponsorship for the time being. Risk of being associated with the problem just too big. Particularly if the immediate future spells much more bad publicity to come. And the big elephant (general public) potentially waking up to doping and corruption in sport, rather than merely Armstrong doping in cycling.
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks
IMHO, he's been stuck with the Armstrong doping controversy and they want the controversy out of sight.
Next watch for IOC dissociating itself publicly from Pat & Hein and working behind the scenes for an elegant solution for those 2.