Lifetime ban for UK Dopers?

Yesterday the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling in the Lashawn Merritt case (IOC v USOC) decided that the IOC's rule making drug banned athletes ineligible from the following Olympic Games was 'invalid and unenforceable' as it was contrary to the IOC's own charter which incorporates the WADA Code. The ordinary maximum ban under the WADA Code is 2 years although in 'aggravating circumstances, such as the use of 2 anabolic steroids, the length can be extended to as much as 4 years. The IOC's policy had meant that in effect athletes faced sanctions of more than the ordinary maximum. Lashawn Merritt committed a doping offence and has just finished serving a 21 month ban. He is now eligible to run at next year's Olympics in London.
The CAS decision places the spotlight firmly back upon the British Olympic Association's Bylaw which bans those British Athletes convicted of doping offences from the Olympics for life. The legality of this Bylaw has never been fully tested in court (although Dwain Chambers did at one unsuccessfully seek to obtain an interim injunction in respect of the ban prior to the Beijing Olympics). The Bylaw was introduced in 1992 largely at the instigation of athletes themselves in order to protect clean athletes and to attempt to deter the ever increasing instance of doping in sport. The Bylaw has continued to enjoy overwhelming support amongst British athletes ever since, as demonstrated by athlete surveys after the last 4 Olympiad. The BOA has vowed to defend its policy.
The problem with the Bylaw is that it is unique to the British Olympic Squad. Other countries have not chosen to follow the same path and there is little prospect (especially now) that any will ever do so. Accordingly Lashawn Merritt will defend his Beijing gold medal in London, but David Millar and Dwain Chambers, inter alia, will not be allowed to compete. Thus far the likes of Millar and Chambers have not indicated whether they will now seek to appeal the Bylaw. Millar, in particular, has had a largely successful rehabilitation from his ban and is admired by many within the cycling community for his part in addressing the issues of the past and working towards a cleaner sport. Nonetheless he appears to fear a backlash if he attempts to challenge something which is so deeply supported. I suspect that he will sacrifice his own Olympic ambitions for the greater good and his continued respect within the sport.
There is a sense in which the BOA policy discriminates against British athletes vis a vis their international counterparts. It is argued by some that all athletes should be subject to one regime ie the WADA Code. If it is felt that the WADA sanctions are insufficient then it is that Code that should be changed for all rather than for an individual country to unilaterally make further sanctions. British athletes are currently subject to double jeopardy. They are subject to a sanction deemed commensurate with the offence, but are then given another sanction that others do not face. The BOA argue that it is for them to decide who is eligible and that there is a right of appeal. Of those appealing only 3 have failed in that appeal. However the whole process is messy and conflicting. Christine Ohuruogu succeeded in her appeal in spite of missing 3 drug tests because she had not actually been found to have taken drugs. The distinction is seemingly slight although the CAS finding in respect of Ohuruogu is interesting. They found her to be naive rather than cynically manipulating the testing system. Millar and Chambers were, of course, caught cynically cheating.