Sprintgeezer
Dial it down a couple of notches...
1) Laws of any democratic country are indeed underpinned by moral considerations, since they are (i) passed by parliament, the elected representatives of the people; and (ii) supported (at least in a common law jurisdiction such as the UK) by legal principles of equity developed over centuries of jurisprudence.
2) The WADA code is not a law. It is a code of conduct drawn up by a non-governmental body and unsupported by any general principles outside the code itself. It is, therefore, entirely possible to question the underlying morality without being either hypocritical or ignorant of legal principles.
3) It is, as you suggest, inconsistent to sign up to the code and then to act in contravention of it. However, it is not inconsistent to seek legal clarification of whether a particular course of action: (i) contravenes the code; or (ii) is in fact outside the scope of the code (being a selection policy rather than a sanction)
4) The desire to seek clarification is particularly acute, and justifiable, if: (i) being a signatory to the code is, in reality, not a voluntary act (if you do not sign up you cannot enter a team in the Olympics); and (ii) you believe that a moral principle is at stake.
5) The concept of the divine right of kings was abolished in the 17th century - I think at that point you were still British?
6) The function of a second house is to provide checks and balances for the first house. The House of Commons has a mandate from the people. This is why established constitutional precedent means that, ultimately, the Commons can overrule the Lords. Where both houses are directly elected, as in the US, the justification for the primacy of the Commons is undermined and legislative statis can result (exhibit A being the current USA).
7) A hereditary peer is answerable to no-one, his or her privilege being outside the gift of the Government. While hereditary peerage is an anachronism, who better (in theory at least) to provide an honest and independent conscience for the nation's lawmakers?
8) Far better to criticise Moynihan for his record serving as a minister in the despicable Thatcher government of the 1980's, and attempting to force through an ID card scheme for football (soccer) fans which sought to demonise an entire group of people for the "crime" of enjoying watching the traditional sport of the working class.
9) Any questions?