Image courtesy of Denis Allbertovich

When you move in with someone for the first time, you come face-to-face with a range of issues that never existed until that moment.

What’s the best way to share the wardrobe space? Who gets to have the first shower before work? Which TV station will you watch while eating breakfast?

When I moved in with my partner Sharon a few months back I was well prepared for all of these issues. After all, we’d accumulated more than six-months-worth of house-sitting in our five years together and we came through it all with our relationship intact and, for better or worse, a willingness to do it all again, albeit in a more formal and a permanent capacity.

But while I was prepared for the trials and tribulations of the domestic domicile, I wasn’t prepared for the cast of sitcom-ready characters in the surrounding apartment complex.

In fact, our first dose of neighbourly affection was upon us before we’d even had a chance to ask: ‘Should there really be water running down the walls?’

As we dragged, scraped and manhandled various pieces of furniture through our seemingly-too-narrow front door (why do they always make couches wider than doorways?!), we noticed a shadowy presence monitoring our progress from across the way.

A little old lady stood in her doorway, directly across from ours, staring unashamedly at the pile of furniture strewn haphazardly across our entrance-room-cum-lounge-room-cum-dining-room.

‘Hi! How are you?’, offered the ever-friendly Sharon, keen to make a good impression with our new neighbours.

While most would reply to the above with something akin to: ‘I’m good. How are you?’, our curious neighbour was going to be bound by no such social customs.

Instead she responded with a dozen steps forward, her feet coming to rest at the base of our front step. She thrust her head unceremoniously through our doorway, peering this way and that, just as a prospective tenant might survey an available rental property.

‘We’re just moving in’, Sharon continued, determined to elicit some kind of verbal response from our slightly-too-eager visitor who, by this point, would have been giving herself a tour of the unit had we not formed an impromptu security cordon.

Having apparently satiated her curiosity, our visitor turned on her heels and wandered off, leaving Sharon and I scratching our heads before sighing and resuming the load-in.

It’s easy to look back and laugh at one-off events like these. But when your neighbours appear hell-bent on employing their lack of consideration for others in perpetuity, it’s a little harder to see the funny side.

Every morning, as Sharon and I enjoy the last snatches of pre-dawn sleep, our next-door neighbour leaves his apartment for work.

Now, I’m not a qualified carpenter, nor do I claim to be an expert when it comes to the construction of front-door locks, but last time I checked, closing a door isn’t the most physically challenging task facing the modern human. You simply apply a force great enough so as to return the door to the shut position and the latch to its companion slot.

That particular memo mustn’t have made it to unit 12. Instead, our early-rising neighbour prefers to combine his departure for work with his training regime for the Australian Door-Slamming Championships.

And so, a little after 5am every weekday, Sharon and I wake with a start, all thanks to a terrifying din that assaults more than just the ears. Teeth are clenched and eyes are squinted in nervous anticipation: will today be the day our front door finally rattles off its hinges and our windows shatter? If not, there’s always tomorrow.

But our neighbours probably shouldn’t shoulder all the blame for our sub-standard introduction to life in Melbourne’s gritty inner-north. The ingenious design of our apartment building should take some of the heat as well.

By some stroke of architectural brilliance, the main bedroom in our apartment – and hence our bed – lies directly beneath the toilet in the apartment above us. It’s something the designers obviously weren’t too concerned about but take it from me: there are few things more relaxing than lying in bed after a hard day’s work, listening to the neighbours use their smallest room.

Suffice to say that few details of the purging process are left to the imagination for us lowly downstairs-dwellers.

I’ll leave with you that appetising allusion and the rather trite suggestion that moving in with a loved one can be a challenging experience — but not always for the reasons you might expect.

It's the question on everyone's lips

If you are the sort of person that enjoys the British TV show Skins or the musical stylings of Britney Spears then you’ll be wanting to spend a bit of time at this here website. At least, that’s what my search engine traffic seems to suggest.

Well over 2,000 visitors have found themselves at this blog after typing the word ‘skins’ into their search engine of choice and well over a 1,000 more have stopped by after searching for ‘britney spears’.

In reality, if you were in search of meaningful material about either subject you would be sorely disappointed.

My only mention of E4’s Skins was a short review of the show, republished here after appearing as a Daily Proposition in Crikey’s Daily Mail. Similarly, my only substantial mention of Britney Spears was a less-than-flattering examination of her on-stage antics some years ago.

So why is this happening and why should you care?

In answer to the former, well, it’s just the way search engines work. To simplify the process somewhat, search engines trawl through websites like this, compile a list of keywords that are attached to pages and articles and then add this information to a whopping great big database. Then, when a user searches for their favourite pop star, the search engine checks to see which sites mention the entertainer in question and suggests those sites to the searcher.

For over 2,000 people that searched for Skins and over 1,000 that searched for Britney Spears, this site would have been listed as a potentially relevant source of information.

Google’s folly aside, why should you care?

Well, let’s just say that search engine traffic can be a pretty hilarious beast.

As well as attracting readers who happen to be searching for a pop star or TV show I’ve mentioned at one point or another, there are some, shall we say, more unexpected search results driving traffic toward A Cursory Glance…

The phrase ‘hermaphrodite images genitalia’ is not one that I tend to make frequent use of in casual conversation and it’s certainly not one that I remember publishing. But while this particular phrase never appeared on the site in its entirety, it’s certainly true that I’ve used all three of those words before, albeit in completely different contexts.

It would seem that the unrelated use of the words ‘hermaphrodite’, ‘images’ and ‘genitalia’ were enough to drive at least one curious reader to this site. One can only assume they would have been rather disappointed.

In a similar vein, the search term ‘stephanie bendixsen lesbian’ has driven a number of ambitious readers this way and, as with the previous example, I suspect the result would have been rather underwhelming. I’ve certainly mentioned Good Game‘s Hex before and the word ‘lesbian’ has also been used but the combination of both is not something I’ve ever had reason to publish.

But perhaps the most entertaining search term to have deposited someone on my digital doorstep was: ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised?’

The thing I like most about this particular search is that it’s clear someone actually wants to know whether or not Karl Stefanovic is circumcised. If the search had been ‘karl stefanovic circumcised’ you could argue they were searching for a video of Mr Stefanovic talking about circumcision, or something similar, but the way the search term is phrased – as a simple yes/no question – seems to leave little doubt.

For those that aren’t familiar with Channel Nine’s International Man of Misery©, Mr Stefanovic is the network’s go-to guy when it comes to on-the-ground ‘reporting’ of natural disasters. As Perth Now points out, Mr Stefanovic seems to have an unhealthy penchant for lobbing into disaster zones: he was there when Cyclone Yasi was wreaking havoc up north, he was on the ground when Christchurch was being torn apart, and he was doing his thing over in Japan after the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear-threat triple-header.

Again, there is a clear reason why a search term like ‘Is Karl Stefanovic circumcised’ takes readers to my blog. In one particular post I happened to mention Mr Stefanovic in passing and in a separate article I argued that women should probably avoid asking their male partners to get circumcised. The combination of these two articles (and their relevant keywords) provided a curious reader with a brief moment of hope.

Honestly though, did this curious individual actually expect to find an answer to their question? Were they hoping to stumble upon something like www.cgradecelebritycircumcisions.com? Or perhaps they were hoping for www.foreskinfinder.com.au?

In any event, it’s good to know that readers can find my site with a simple Google search. Now all I need to do is start saying something worth reading about…

This article first appeared at upstart.

Assigning an artist to a particular genre can be a challenging task. Do Ke$ha’s drunken ramblings count as crunkcore, hip-hop or electropop? Should The Mars Volta be filed under psychedelic-rock, jazz-fusion or progressive-punk? Are Godspeed You! Black Emperor an embodiment of post-rock or should we just call them alternative? Thankfully, some musicians are a little easier to pigeonhole; Katy Perry for one.

If you were looking for a definition of ‘pop music’, Perry’s recently released second album, ‘Teenage Dream’, would be all you’d need to know. It’s a 40 minute trip through a sugary world of catchy choruses, up-tempo dance beats and barely-restrained sexual desire. The songs are short and sharp, produced and processed within an inch of their lives, and Perry’s vocals sound like they’ve been tweaked and tuned at every possible opportunity.

In fact, the entire album is one giant pop cliché; there’s the token party anthem, complete with a celebration of teenage booze culture (‘Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F)’), the predictable declaration of undying love (‘Hummingbird Heartbeat’) and, of course, the heartfelt piano ballad (‘Not Like the Movies’).

In many ways, this album encapsulates everything that’s wrong with popular music today. It’s a formulaic, over-produced and largely lifeless outing that does little to advance the state of music. The majority of the lyrics are bland, predictable or both and singing about the virtues of weekly intoxication is so 2008.

Strangely though, it’s still thoroughly listenable.

Thanks to strong support from commercial radio stations, dance-pop tracks like ‘California Gurls’ and ‘Teenage Dream’ are already firmly entrenched in the popular consciousness. But while hits like these will draw listeners to album, it’s the non-radio tracks that are likely to give ‘Teenage Dream’ some sort of longevity.

In ‘Pearl’ Perry recalls a time when she allowed herself to be controlled by the man in her life, meanwhile reassuring the listener that such a relationship isn’t all that conducive to personal growth. In ‘Circle the Drain’ Perry takes a break from sugar-sweet party anthems and delivers a fairly biting account of her ex’s seemingly-destructive drug habit. While a break-up song is hardly a novelty for a pop album there’s something refreshing about Perry’s change of pace here.

In fact, it’s the album’s darker, more thoughtful moments that really give ‘Teenage Dream’ substance. ‘Who Am I Living For?’ is probably the album’s strongest track due largely to its surprising, and refreshingly original references to the biblical figure of Esther. With lyrics like ‘It’s never easy to be chosen, never easy to be called, standing on the front line when the bombs start to fall’, this track is a far cry from the clichéd dance-pop that dominates the album.

Unfortunately, Perry’s foray into the world of thoughtful subject matter is short-lived. On ‘Peacock’ she delivers one of the most unconvincing attempts at subtlety in the history of popular music;

‘I wanna see your peacock, cock, cock,
Your peacock, cock.
Your peacock, cock, cock,
Your peacock.’

But lest the audience be confused by her attempted double entendre, Ms Perry makes it quite clear that she isn’t talking about brightly coloured birds;

‘Are you brave enough to let me see your peacock?
What you waiting for, it’s time for you to show it off.
Don’t be a shy kinda guy, I bet it’s beautiful,
Come on baby let me see, what you’re hiding underneath’.

‘Teenage Dream’ will not win any awards for its musicianship, its originality or its lyrical content but there are certainly worse things you could be listening to. This is about as ‘pop’ as pop music gets but if you’re prepared to listen to it as such then Perry’s brief departures from the pop-princess paradigm will come as a refreshing change.

The Verdict: 3/5

This article was first published at The National Times

As our lives become increasingly saturated with technology, digital media and the internet, it’s no secret that our younger generations are spending less time in the great outdoors. Whether it’s hours spent in front of the TV, surfing the internet, playing on a games console or a combination of these, kids today seem far less inclined to enjoy the natural world than in previous generations.

While older generations have long bemoaned a decline in the time spent outside, there has been growing speculation that such a shift might also have negative health implications for those involved. According to Dr William Bird, health adviser to Natural England, a lack of exposure to nature has the potential to adversely affect the mental health of society’s youngest members.

But while Generations Y and Z are more likely to spend time playing video games than recreating the adventures of Enid Blyton’s ‘Famous Five’, they are not without inspiration when it comes to enjoying what nature has to offer.

Bear Grylls is a former member of the British Special Services and has carved a place for himself in the popular consciousness through his TV show, Man vs. Wild. In the show, Grylls encounters various types of hostile terrain and places himself in stressful situations in order to demonstrate survival techniques.

The show has attracted some notoriety due to Grylls’ willingness to subject himself to otherwise-repulsive scenarios – eating unappetising critters for example – but it’s his passion for the outdoors and an unbridled sense of adventure that has the potential to inspire younger viewers to get off the couch and head outside.

As well as his Man vs. Wild adventures, Grylls has had a leading role in a number of truly impressive expeditions. In 2003 he led the first team to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in an ‘open’ rigid inflatable boat, in 2000 he led the first team to circumnavigate the UK by jet ski and in 1998, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Briton (at the time) to reach the summit of Mt. Everest.

But if Bear Grylls has the potential to motivate otherwise-sedentary TV viewers into action, then the efforts of Ed Stafford should be enough to spark an adventuring revolution among our younger generations.

Earlier this month the former British Army captain became the first person to hike the length of the Amazon River. The epic trek took Stafford 859 days to complete in which time he faced hostility from local indigenous communities, the constant danger of not finding enough food and unwanted attention from all manner of creepy crawlies.

Stafford’s journey began in April 2008 when he reached the summit of the Nevado Mismi, a peak in the Peruvian Andes which is widely credited as the source of the Amazon River. At that point Stafford had the company of friend Luke Collyer but after the two had a falling out and the latter left the expedition, Stafford continued on alone.

Five months into the trek, Stafford was joined by Gadiel ‘Cho’ Sanchez Rivera, a local Peruvian who planned to accompany Stafford for five days. When Stafford reached the mouth of the Amazon two years later, Cho was still by his side.

While it’s pretty hard not to be inspired by Stafford’s efforts, not everyone is going to find the idea of a two-and-a-half year hike all that appealing. In fact, only a small percentage of the population would even consider embarking on such an expedition.

According to to Dr Brad Wright, a lecturer in the School of Psychological Science at La Trobe University, it is a sense of ‘hardiness’ that sets the likes of Stafford and Grylls apart from the majority of the population.

‘Hardiness is defined by higher levels of commitment, challenge and control’, he said.  ‘Those with a drive to push themselves to achieve often gain immense satisfaction from achieving their ambitions.’

Sure, the efforts Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford might be beyond the reach of most people, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be cause for inspiration. And, at a time when our younger generations are spending less time outside than ever before and the average Australian adult spends 90 per cent of their time indoors, there are certainly worse people we could be looking up to.

This piece first appeared at The Punch.

If you are a fan of reality TV then there’s every chance you’ve imagined yourself as contestant on one of the genre’s many shows. Maybe you’ve thought your singing ability could make you the next Australian Idol, perhaps your love of the outdoors made you feel like you could be the next Survivor or maybe you thought a childhood spent playing with table-tennis balls was worth $500,000. If The Amazing Race is your reality show of choice, your dreams of becoming a D-list celebrity could well be on their way to fulfilment.

Channel Seven recently announced that it will be producing an Australian version of the popular US reality series, giving a handful of Australians the chance to race around the world for a ‘massive cash prize’. The show has been running in the US for nine years in which time CBS has managed to pump out an impressive sixteen seasons, with a 17th due for broadcast later this year.

For those that haven’t seen the show, take the biggest scavenger hunt you’ve ever seen, add pairs of clueless tourists, some Big Brother-style 24/7 surveillance and the most stressful elements of travelling, mix them together and you get something that vaguely resembles The Amazing Race.

Hundreds of teams are likely to apply for this ‘opportunity’ and if you thinking of throwing your hat in the ring, be aware that the 16-page application form provides would-be racers with more than a few hoops to jump through.

For starters, you’ve got to be willing to divulge some fairly personal information, including your weight, your relationship status and the names and ages of any children you might happen to have. If you’ve been arrested you have to provide full details and if you’ve ever hit someone ‘in anger or self-defence’ you have to explain why you did it.

If the personal questions are a little pointed then the questions about your relationship with your teammate are even more so. ‘What is the worst experience you have had with your teammate?’ doesn’t seem to be all that constructive a question and ‘What is the biggest disappointment you have experienced from your teammate?’ is not a whole lot better.

Of course it’s all about building a profile of you as a potential contestant and there are several questions within the application that will help the producers to narrow the field. For example, answering ‘no’ to ‘I am available for 5 weeks between September and December 2010′ is likely to see your application rejected before they even get to read your name. An answer of a disparaging nature to ‘What is your opinion of foreigners?’ is equally likely to terminate your prospects of appearing on the show.

As pointed and personal as the application is, it’s the fine print that will determine how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to get their faces on TV. One section explains that applicants ‘agree to comply with all requests and directions given by the Producers’ with a later paragraph insisting that such cooperation will be on a ‘twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis’.

But if the desire to get your face on TV outweighs your desire not to be a Channel Seven pawn, it’s worth considering the contestant pool from previous versions of the show. For example, if the US version is anything to go by, the 11 teams are likely to cover a mixture of ethnicities, relationship types, ages and sexual preferences.

There will be an old married couple, a gay couple, the young female friends who provide eye-candy in the promos, a non-Caucasian team, a team of brothers or sisters, a father/son or father/daughter team and, being an Australian version of the show, a team of bogans. Tailoring your written and video applications to one of these combinations is likely to be the best route to the audition process.

But of course your application needs to be special in order to stand out from the hundreds of entries that Seven are likely to receive and it’s the video application that presents the best chance of catching the producers’ collective eye. You should try to engage with the viewer, convince them that the show would benefit from your presence and as the application form says, ‘personality counts!’

But if you want a serious advantage in making your application stand out then John Safran’s 1997 audition tape for Race Around the World is just about the best audition tape you are ever likely to see. Not only is Safran aware that the producers need a way of labelling him but he uses his otherwise-annoying voice as a way of selling himself.

Having said that, Race Around the World did see Safran running naked through the streets of Jerusalem and placing a curse on his ex-girlfriend.  Whether or not these sort of antics will be included in the ‘requests and directions’ given by producers of The Amazing Race Australia remains highly unlikely…

This is a piece I wrote just after the election had been called and that bounced its way around various editors’ inboxes but received no reply. The National Times was going to publish it last week but decided against it in an attempt to focus on non-election articles. Imagine now that its the first week of the election campaign and that Gillard still looked like she had a stranglehold over the Mad Monk…

We have our reigning champion and we have our contender. We have our crowd favourite and we have our underdog. We have our hype and we have our nervous anticipation. And now, with August 21, we have a date for our title fight.

The Australian political landscape bears many similarities with the world of professional wrestling and the notion of ‘kayfabe’ is no exception.

For the uninitiated, kayfabe is the wrestler’s code; the unspoken rule that obliges wrestlers to present the world of ‘sports entertainment’ as real. In reality, matches are decided before the competitors enter the ring, feuds and allegiances are scripted well in advance of their on-screen appearances and blows in the ring never quite land as hard as they should. It is kayfabe that seeks to maintain the suspension of belief for the audience.

While seeing Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott slug it out in a ‘Hell in a Cell’ match does have a certain appeal, the concept of political kayfabe is rather more subtle. In any given situation, it is the opposition’s role to oppose the government, regardless of the merits of the government’s argument.

If the government lunges forth with a new policy; the opposition counters with a stinging critique. If the government pulls some new legislation from under the ring, the opposition attempts to disarm them in the senate. One need only look to the events of the last year to see political kayfabe in action.

When the federal government proposed the introduction of a Resources Super Profits Tax in May the opposition dubbed it a ‘great big new tax which could effectively kill the Golden Goose’; the Australian mining sector. Yet when Prime Minister Gillard made considerable negotiations with the mining industry in an attempt to ensure a solid future for the industry, the Coalition continued their vocal disapproval of the scheme.

The issue of Labor’s internet filter is another pertinent example. While Abbott has been noticeably non-committal on the issue of internet censorship, Joe Hockey has been willing to offer his opinion, dutifully slamming the scheme. Yet, when Senator Conroy announced that the internet filter would be delayed due to community concerns, the Coalition was quick to offer their critique of the move, labelling the decision a ‘humiliating backflip’.

But the most indicative example of political kayfabe in action is Labor’s seemingly doomed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the Rudd/Wong partnership announced their ETS late last year, the Abbott-led opposition was quick to hit it with the ‘great big new tax’ stamp. Yet, when Rudd announced the indefinite shelving of the ETS, the Coalition’s continued to criticise Rudd, accusing him of political cowardice.

Rather than have a rational debate about the issue of climate change, both the Rudd government and Abbott opposition continued to fight for their respective policies, unwilling to surrender. In the grapple that ensued, the real losers were the health of our planet and our future generations.

Sure, we’re all for a debate that provides us with several interpretations of an important issue; without such a debate we would hardly have perspective on the pressing issues that face our nation. And sure, you could argue that the opposition’s job is to, well, oppose the government. But on rare occasions our politicians have shown that political kayfabe can be set aside in favour of the greater good.

When Kevin Rudd made his now famous apology to indigenous Australians for the atrocity that manifested itself in the ‘stolen generations’, then-opposition leader Brendan Nelson followed Rudd’s speech, endorsing the then-prime minister’s message. Indeed the apology was supported by all but a handful of opposition ministers, showing that common ground is possible on matters of great import.

Why can’t this attitude of mutual understanding and compromise be taken as the starting point every time? Why can’t the important issues be discussed rationally without succumbing to the obligations of political kayfabe?

Professional wrestling can be entertaining even when we know that matches are decided before the combatants enter the ring. But wouldn’t it be nice to have the occasional fight where the outcome was decided in the ring? By all means have a debate about the key issues – this is a democracy after all – but why not start with the aim of creating solutions, rather than fulfilling ideological responsibilities?

But, with a title fight just around the corner, it’s almost certain that the current rules of engagement will prevail. After all, Tony Abbott is expecting Labor to run a ‘filthy’ election campaign and, if history is anything to go by, Julia Gillard should expect no less from the opposition. After all, it’s all in the script…

This review first appeared at upstart.

With the volume of mind-numbing dross that comes out of Hollywood these days, it’s refreshing to find a film that actually forces the viewer to do some thinking. Make no mistake about it; Inception is mind-numbing, but in the best way possible.

The film follows the plight of Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), an ‘extractor’ who has fled the US after being implicated in his wife’s death. In leaving his country behind, Cobb has also become separated from his young children and the film pivots around Cobb’s attempts at a family reunion. But this emotional hook is only the skeleton of a wonderfully confusing and thought-provoking film.

As an ‘extractor’, Cobb invades people’s dreams, entering their subconscious mind in order to ‘extract’ valuable secrets. When he accepts an offer to perform an ‘inception’ – an attempt to plant an idea in a target’s head – things become a little more challenging for Cobb and wonderfully mind-bending for the viewer.

Cobb assembles a crack team – dream ‘architect’ Ariadne, sedatives expert Yusuf, ‘forger’ Eames, and ‘point man’ Arthur – and together they attempt to subconsciously influence the young heir to a multi-national corporation. What follows is a perplexing journey through various characters’ dreams, through dreams-within-dreams and through questions about the very nature of reality itself.

It’s very easy to get lost within the complexity of this film and a number of times I found myself wanting to pause the film, just to have a chance to digest everything that was happening. For this reason, Inception is a brave film – not everyone will enjoy the intricate storyline and viewers who like their films short and flashy might find this to be fairly tough going.

Luckily, there are several cues to help the audience navigate through this philosophical playground. For example, whenever the young dream architect Ariadne (Ellen Page) asks a question of the more experienced extractors, it is as much about explaining the film’s plot to the audience as it is about moving the story forward. Just as her mythological namesake helped Theseus to escape from the depths of the Cretian labyrinth, Inception’s Ariadne helps the viewer to successfully navigate the twists and turns of the film’s complex plot.

Full credit must go to writer, producer and director Christopher Nolan here for his vision and execution in bringing Inception to the big screen. The film had been in development for ten years prior to its release and it’s not hard to see why.

Where a film like Avatar was visually impressive but lacking an original storyline, Inception delivers on both fronts, keeping the audience on their toes throughout. Sure, Nolan is heavily influenced by the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and the Wachowski brothers, but Inception still manages a fusion of fast-paced gun-play, engaging storyline and philosophy that few films can lay claim to.

Special mention should also go to Inception’s cinematographer, Wally Pfister, who brings the film’s breathtaking car-chases, amazing cityscapes and action set-pieces to life in a way that is truly captivating. The dream worlds of Inception are particularly impressive and the sight of Paris folding in on itself and the zero-gravity hotel fight will stick with the viewer long after leaving the cinema.

Inception is a film that challenges you to stay involved the whole way through and that is likely to leave you feeling a little dazed and confused. It’s also a film that leaves you with as many questions as it answers and the film’s final sequence is no exception.

If you enjoy films that are thought-provoking and that leave you questioning plotlines for days afterwards then go and see Inception. At times it’s a challenge just to keep up, but it’s more than worth the effort.

The verdict: 5/5

If professional cycling was a Hollywood starlet, it would have just emerged from rehab, teetering on the edge of another relapse. The sport’s reputation has long been tainted by those who have resorted to doping and a handful of such offenders are found every year.

In the 2007 Tour de France dual stage winner Alexandra Vinokourov was found guilty of doping and his Astana team immediately withdrew from the race. The following year, teammates Riccardo Ricco and Leonard Piepoli were fired from the Saunier Duval squad after both riders admitted to taking the banned substance, MIRCERA. In the 2009 Tour de France, stage 16 winner Mikel Astarloza was found guilty of doping in the weeks leading up to the race.

While this year’s Tour de France yielded no cases of doping, there is a storm brewing and it hangs directly over the sport’s greatest champion, Lance Armstrong.

According to Armstrong’s former teammate Floyd Landis – the man who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France victory after failing a drug test – Armstrong used banned substances in 2002 and 2003 while riding for the U.S Postal Service team. While Armstrong has denied the claims, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), International Cycling Union (UCI) and US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) have all signalled their intentions to investigate Landis’ allegations.

But Landis isn’t alone in making allegations against Armstrong. Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond told The Denver Post that the upcoming doping investigation would find “overwhelming” evidence of wrongdoing on Armstrong’s behalf.

In fact, Armstrong’s career has been littered with allegations of doping. On one such occasion, the French newspaper L’Equipe claimed that six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France had been found to contain the banned substance EPO. At the time, drug tests weren’t able to detect EPO – a hormone which induces red blood cell production – but later tests apparently found evidence of EPO use.  In 2008 Armstrong refused further testing on the samples on the grounds that they had not been properly maintained.

Despite this and other accusations levelled at Armstrong throughout his career, the seven-time Tour de France winner has never tested positive to an official drug test. The agencies responsible for investigating Landis’ claims will be hoping they don’t find cause to disrupt that record.

While the suspensions faced by riders like Vinokourov and Landis have damaged the reputation of professional cycling, to find Armstrong guilty of doping would be catastrophic for the credibility of the sport. After all, with the greatest story in cycling history, Armstrong has the most to lose.

After being given a minimal chance of surviving a bout of cancer that affected his lungs, testicles and brain, Armstrong not only made a comeback to professional cycling but managed to win the sport’s greatest race, the Tour de France, seven times in a row. The Texan’s cancer-comeback and unprecedented success at le Tour resulted in a huge increase in the sport’s popularity in the US and around the world. During Armstrong’s reign, television audiences for the Tour de France increased significantly and USA Cycling memberships rose considerably.

But for all of Armstrong’s influence on the popularity of the sport, the hard work will all be undone if he is found to have doped his way to the top. His frequent claims of innocence, his apparent “six hours a day” on the bike in lieu of drugs and his good-guy persona will all count for nothing if Landis’ damaging claims are proven to be true.

For the sake of the sport we can only hope that Floyd Landis is being as dishonest now as he was in 2006.

This article first appeared at Crikey.

It’s been a long time coming, but Skins is finally back on Australian TV. It’s been four months since the show’s fourth season concluded in the UK and now, finally, Australian audiences get to see it.

For those that are new to the award-winning British drama, Skins follows the exploits of a group of friends as they negotiate the ups and downs of teenage life in Bristol. Season four sees the return of the previous season’s cast, including some of the most memorable and believable characters in the show to date.

James Dean-wannabe Cook (Jack O’Connell) is a stand-out and is as entertaining as he is repulsive, the school’s new headmaster — the hilariously harsh Professor David Blood — is played to a tee by stand-up comedian Chris Addison, and Hugo Speer is chilling as a psychiatrist later in the series.

Focusing on the exploits of family-man and occasional DJ Thomas Tomone, tonight’s season opener sets the tone for the series in more ways than one. The episode’s dark overtones are a fixture throughout the entire season and the tragic events of the episode’s opening minutes serve to drive a main plotline for over half the series.

Unfortunately, season four is the shortest Skins season to date at a measly eight episodes long. This comes as a bit of a disappointment when US dramas like Gossip Girl manage to churn out 20-plus episode per season. Still, the age-old quip about quality vs. quantity is most apt here, and the length of the season is just about the only drawback to be found.

Skins’ strong point has always been its ability to combine heavier, more dramatic events with the more whimsical moments of troubled youth. Just when an episode feels like it is being weighed down by tragedy and the trials of teenage angst, a lighter moment is invariably introduced to balance the mood. Similarly, the show’s lighter moments never feel like they are allowed to dominate the tone of the show and a more dramatic moment is never far away.

All the ingredients of angsty teen drama are here — the unbridled passion of first love, the tragedy of a broken family, the waxing and waning of old friendships. But what sets Skins apart from the likes of Home and Away and Neighbours is its ability to go beyond the soap-opera clichés and embrace the hedonistic and oftentimes dangerous world of teenage life.

There’s frequent drug use, explorations of s-xual orientation and a peek into the frightening world of mental illness and they all make for truly compelling viewing. This is gritty, believable and honest storytelling that works overtime to engage the viewer on an emotional level. Not to be missed.

The details: Season four of Skins starts tonight at 10pm on SBS One.

This article was first published at The Punch.

With the federal election less than five weeks away, the Australian media is set to go into political overdrive. News bulletins will dedicate additional time to the exploits of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott and in the brief period since the election announcement, we’ve already seen both leaders swoon in the presence of some opportunely-located children.

Newspapers will dedicate additional pages to the dissection of election campaigns, talkback radio will be dominated by sceptical treatment of election promises and “the worm” is likely to resurface in televised debates between the two leaders.

In great news for the legions of Chaser fans, the boys will return to the ABC in the coming weeks to preview the election in their trademark style. The folks behind The Gruen Transfer will also roll out a handful of special episodes looking at the abundance of party advertising that is sure to flood our daily loves in the lead up to the election.