I was standing in the Reuters newsroom where I worked in the then German capital of Bonn, when my former colleague Martin Nesirky filed an urgent story from East Berlin. The old printer it emerged from went into alarm mode.

The story that flashed around the world in seconds had a simple message - East German citizens could now leave the country without a visa.

But what it really meant was that the Berlin Wall had just crashed down before our eyes. It took a few hours before everybody - East German citizens and the guards on the wall particularly - understood what was happening.

For the next weeks and months, I was in the middle of the most exciting story of my life. And, it is often forgotten, that it was a big sporting story too.

I went into East Germany and hunted down the doctors who had been running the GDR's former drug-taking regime. Amazingly, they were very honest about the systematic cheating. In the late autumn of 1989, there was a real sense that East Germans needed to unload the emotional baggage they had been carrying around for decades.

Within hours of the Wall coming down, there was talk of a Berlin Olympic bid and a joint East-West Olympic team. At the time, both ideas seemed years away. But reunification happened within a year and we saw the emergence of a united German team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. The Berlin bid was less successful, largely because the Cold War was over when it went to the International Olympic Committee.

I then reported on a fascinating five years of German sport when the football team won the World Cup in Italy and Germany was a force in a variety of Olympic sports, the mix of east and west German systems.

The country's powerful economy also meant many major championships came to Germany because there were plenty of big-name sponsors ready to back them.

The reason I am writing about this is that I feel Britain could be heading into equally exciting sporting days in the three years to the 2012 Olympics and beyond.

We've just had a great world gymnastics championships in London and the ATP World Tour tennis finals are heading to the O2 Arena this month. This will put the global spotlight on London and on the O2 as one of the key 2012 venues.

The Olympics will mean many more global championships will be taking place in London and Britain in the next few years. There's the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014 and almost certainly, a world athletics championships at the Olympic Park in the five years after 2012.

You could add the possibility of a football World Cup in 2018 but my sources tell me there's going to be a lot of work to do to stop the Spanish and the Russians snatching that tournament away from us.

But even if the World Cup bid fails next year, London and Britain must enjoy this next decade and use these events to inspire kids to take up sport.

And we have to make sure people away from London - in Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland - get a piece of all of the action when the capital has its big days. That means cheap rail tickets, Park and Ride, and travel-ticket deals have to be a big part of the next 10 years.

With just more than 1,000 days to go to the opening ceremony, we found plenty of critics who don't believe the promises made during the bid are being kept, especially those about jobs and training, housing and sporting opportunities.

We've been making a film for BBC One's Inside Out programme in London. You can see it on Monday October 26 at 1930 GMT on BBC One or watch it here..

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

Unions told us that the promises about training are not being kept because there are not enough apprentices working at the Olympic Park.

We also talked to people who are worried that there are going to be fewer affordable homes available than originally planned.

We also went to Manchester to see Britain's former NBA basketball star John Amaechi, a former 2012 ambassador. He says the structures are not in place to deliver the biggest promise made by 2012 - to inspire millions of children to take up sport.

I put these criticisms to the new chief executive of the Olympic Legacy Company, Andrew Altman, in his first broadcast interview. The American urban planner is optimistic that London can deliver but admits the job is the biggest he has ever had.

What I've also learned is that the Legacy Company doesn't have control over what will happen to the Olympic Village after the Games because of the way the land has been set up by the Olympic Delivery Authority.

That means they can't influence which company or companies might buy up some of the homes afterwards.

Given that the village is a crucial part of making the legacy plans work, this is a worrying revelation for the Legacy Company.

I understand that a breakfast meeting took place this morning when Johnson agreed to drop his campaign for the shooting events to be moved from Woolwich to the east London borough of Barking.

In return, Jowell agreed to back the Mayor's hopes of moving the badminton and rhythmic gymnastics to Wembley.

Last week the International Olympic Committee said it was a matter of "urgency" that the row was solved before the end of the year.

Johnson and Jowell will now put their backing behind 2012's hopes of persuading badminton and rythymic gymnastics to move to the Wembley Arena.

This allows 2012 to save at least £20 million because they will not need to build a temporary venue for the sports near the 02, the original plan put forward to the IOC during the bid.

A meeting was due to take place later today to discuss the move between 2012 and international gymnastics officials, who are in London for the world championships at the 02 Arena.

The decision is a boost to Woolwich whose Labour MP Nick Raynsford staged a protest at City Hall last week about the Mayor's plans.

Barking will not lose out in the process, however. Jowell plans to give it the status of an Olympic borough and spend £500,000 on creating training facilities in the east London borough for visiting teams.

The venues row was one of the biggest controversies of the Games so far.

2012 have been trying to find agreement with the IOC and badminton and rhythmic gymnastics for more than a year now.

But sports officials have been reluctant to make the move because it will mean more travelling for competitors from the Olympic village in Stratford in east London.

This will be a key issue at today's meeting.

Johnson is adamant that cost-cutting must take place in the Olympic budget and says a temporary venue would be a waste of taxpayers cash.

The sudden appearance of the east London borough as a potential 2012 venue for either shooting or badminton and rhythmic gymnastics has caused astonishment in some Olympic circles.

I understand the idea of "Olympic Barking" is more about UK politics than sport.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

London Mayor Boris Johnson is keen for the shooting to be moved away from Woolwich to a brownfield site in Barking. Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell wants the badminton and rhythmic gymnastics to be moved there instead of building a temporary arena at the 02 for the two sports.

Both of them are talking about Barking being a cheaper alternative - Johnson says £10 million can be saved by the shooting move.

But, I've been told that senior 2012 officals fear putting the Olympics in Barking could actually be a lot more expensive than the Mayor and Jowell are saying because of the improvements which will have to be made to the area.

However, the money is likely to be taken from other government departments handling regeneration and transport improvements - and not from the Olympic Delivery Authority budget.

So why the sudden fascination with Barking?

That's where the politics comes in.

With an election looming before the middle of next year, the Government is very worried about the Labour vote in the area where the British National Party (BNP) has been very successful in recent council elections.

By spending extra money to regenerate Barking with the catalyst of the Olympics, the Labour Party would hope to address some of the frustrations which the local people have about key issues like housing.

Johnson's support for Barking appears to be more about money. He needs a victory in his campaign of Olympic cost-cutting and Barking can help him get it as well as secure extra government cash for the borough.

So where does this all leave Olympic sport?

Right in the middle of domestic politics.

No wonder some people are confused in the International Olympic Committee. London won the Games with a particular masterplan. Now they keep threatening to move the goalposts.

When he took over from Juan Antonio Samaranch in 2001, he became more diplomatic in his answers to my questions. It came with the job.

So it is interesting that he made it crystal clear to me in an interview this week that there will be no messing with London 2012 chiefs if they stray too far from their promises during the bid.

I was talking to him about Boris Johnson's anger with 2012 at plans to build a £40 million temporary venue near the 02 in Greenwich.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

As I revealed in this blog a fortnight ago, the London Mayor wants the idea scrapped and is trying to push through plans which could mean more travelling for some competitors.

Some sports have already objected to this. When I asked Rogge how he would handle the situation, he reminded me quickly that he had the right to veto plans if they are too far from the pledges made by a host city.

Don't forget, London can't just change the venue plans, even if they finally get the approval of 2012, Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell and the British Olympic Association.

The IOC has the final say and it won't allow anything which affects the experience of athletes who were promised they would 'compete and not commute' in 2012.

Expect plenty of rows on this for months yet. And also expect Johnson to dig in hard to get his way.

2012 has become very political. This row is so acrimonious that Johnson rushed in front of TV cameras this week without even telling 2012 he planned to do so.

Boris has stepped out of the Olympic tent. The 2012 consensus has been shattered. With the IOC also ready to play a hard game, we are in for some interesting days.

They had a fair point. It is the biggest challenge of every Games to transport hundreds of thousands of spectators, officials and competitors around the city every day.

In some ways London 2012 chiefs have had an easy ride so far on transportation. Their tactic has been to tell us that the fast "javelin" trains to the Olympic Park from King's Cross will solve most of the problems.

Will this all be solved by the Games? Officials say they hope so with a new development. But what is interesting is that it is the renovated bit of the station where there are problems at the moment.

I have my doubts whether King's Cross and St Pancras can cope with the large number of people using the station and underground in 2012. We may have the sad sight of people with tickets struggling to get to the Games.

The other big problem with transport involves all of the officials and VIPS heading from Hyde Park hotels to the main Olympic Park. Will Olympic lanes really work on London's narrow streets and along a key route like the Embankment? I have my doubts and so do the people who know the streets better than most, London's taxi drivers.

So, I was not surprised when I got hold of a special report from Scotland Yard this week, saying the police do NOT support the current plans for an Olympic Route Network.

The Met Police are worried about the response times of emergency vehicles. So is the London Ambulance Service. And they don't think the Olympic Delivery Authority has done enough work on the detail of the special lanes for Olympic vehicles.

From now on, 2012 are going to have to start answering transport questions in a lot more detail. The Javelin spin won't work anymore when the capital's police force is unhappy.

Now, it has finally happened with London Mayor Boris Johnson said to be involved in an acrimonious showdown with the British Olympic Association at an Olympic board meeting this week.

The argument was about money. Should 2012 spend £40 million on a temporary venue for badminton and rhythmic gymnastics near the o2 or save money by shuffling sports around and using a venue like Wembley?

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

Boris Johnson says Wembley should be used because a temporary venue is a waste of money. He wants boxing to go to Wembley from the Excel arena in east London and the gymnastics and badminton to take its place in Excel.

There have also been attempts, as I reported last year, to persuade badminton to go to Wembley.

But both boxing and badminton have protested that it is too far from the Olympic Village in east London to Wembley. They say 2012 promised athletes would compete and not commute and they don't want their competitors commuting across the capital every day.

I understand Johnson exploded at the board meeting when he was told by British Olympic Association chairman Colin Moynihan that he had to follow the views of the "people that matter" i.e. the sports and the international sports federations.

The Mayor told the meeting that the taxpayers mattered too and vetoed the proposals on the table. So 2012 are facing a venues crisis.

And who should win this argument in a recession? The athletes or the taxpayers?

One thing is certain. They are a long way from a solution.

The shooting venue at Woolwich is opposed by the sport's national governing body because it leaves no legacy and because some say it can't cope with staging the event safely.

Now there is serious talk of moving the sport to Barking. Boris Johnson supports that. But I have learned that Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell is pushing for the shooting to stay at Woolwich but for badminton to go to a cheaper temporary venue at Barking.

Confused? Well you should be. The Olympic world has less than three years before the games when all the venues should be finalised.

This is the week the recession hit the games and the people running them could not decide how to handle it.

He tells them: "There's no point buying one of the most beautiful paintings in the world and then putting it in a cheap frame."

What he means is that there is little point in spending billions of pounds building the facilities for the Olympics and then failing to take advantage of the Games because you haven't spent enough money on the projects which help them make a real difference.

There is growing concern that Britain is doing that because there are not enough programmes in place to increase sports participation across London and the country.

Remember, the big promise of the bid was to inspire people to take up sport.

The chief coach Jane Farrier there spends her days having to worry whether there is going to be a track at all in 2012 because the land is set to be used for redevelopment.

The council says it wants to keep a track in the borough but the people at Orion Juniors are not convinced the club has a future.

This is hardly great evidence of Britain taking full advantage of the Games. The Government is running a 2012 campaign for free swimming for the under 17s and people 60 or over. It's a good idea and it has had success in some areas.

But the CCPR, which represents grassroots sports around the country, says it's time to be more ambitious with less than three years to go before the Olympics.

The key goals are to train up more new coaches and to improve facilities so that when children want to have a go at Olympic sports in 2011 and 2012, they will easily find a coach and a sports centre near their home.

Even in a recession, it's worth spending a little bit of extra cash on these projects to avoid 2012 ending up like a Van Gogh masterpiece in a plastic frame.

Now athletics is taking the first steps to making its programme more accessible to younger people. It has to. TV audiences for its World Championships have fallen dramatically since 2000.

In an interview with BBC London, Seb Coe says the programme has to be shorter with more finals together. He also wants more commentary available to spectators.

It could also mean that athletics shortens its programme at the 2012 Games. No decision has been made on this yet but many will welcome it.

Not only would the athletics show be improved but a few extra days free of track and field would give other sports the opportunity to grab the limelight.

Evenings at the games have usually been dominated by swimming and then athletics. Why not give a few free nights in the middle of the Games when sports like gymnastics, cycling or badminton could take centre stage?

We might even see rugby sevens staging a special tournament in 2012 if it gets the go ahead to be part of the 2016 Olympics.

I've been told rugby chiefs are keen for it to be part of the cultural programme.

But this week's decision by the IOC to put forward golf as a new sport in 2016 is likely to be controversial before the IOC vote in October on two new sports.

I've learned in Berlin that golf has lots of work to do to persaude all of the voting IOC members that it deserves a place in the Games. Should you let in a sport where the Olympic title would not be the biggest crown in the sport?

What could happen is that rugby sevens will be allowed in for 2016 but the IOC decides to leave the door open for another new sport in 2020.

But it happened this week at a briefing by Olympic security chiefs from the Met Police, Home Office and 2012.

Why, I asked, were there clauses in the Olympic Act which allow the police to raid the homes of people with anti-2012 posters in their front windows?

Chris Allison, the man in charge of the Games at the Met Police, had just told me that the police would not be using the powers in the Act to do this.

So why then are there clauses about "non-commercial advertising", which covers political protests, in the Act?

Nobody could answer that.

That's because, human rights lawyers believe, those clauses shouldn't be there.

The Act gives the Government the power to tell the police to remove anti-Olympics posters from both businesses and homes near Olympic venues.

Legal experts say it even gives the police the power to enter the home of somebody who is producing the posters on a photocopier.

Last month, we broke the story about the concerns about freedom of speech expressed by the leading human rights lawyer Aileen McColgan.

We went to Greenwich, where some residents oppose the staging of the equestrian events. There, one leading campaigner was shocked that he could have police on his doorstep demanding to remove a poster from his front window. "Bullying," he called it.

Chris Allison says the police won't follow the letter of the law. Civil rights actitivists will be watching closely to make sure the Met keep to that promise.

But critics believe the Act seems to have been passed to satisfy the International Olympic Committee, without enough proper scrutiny about the freedom of speech issues.

The criticism goes with the job. There are plenty of other people who have accused me of being in the pocket of 2012 and being too positive.

Neither is true, of course.

But when Sheffield teenager Simon Grunwerg contacted the blog a few months ago with questions about the Games, I decided to arrange a meeting for him with London 2012.

If 2012 officials are not satisfying him, then they are failing.

So we arranged for Simon to meet 2012 ambassador Jonathan Edwards near the Olympic site. I specifically refused to help Simon out with any of his research. I didn't tell him what questions he should ask and I left him to talk to the former triple jumper on his own.

You can see a bit of the interview here. Simon didn't hold back with his questions. He wanted to know whether it was right to spend so much money on the Games during a recession. Were the Games just for Londoners or the rest of the country? And he probed Jonathan about the use of the facilities after the Games.

What it showed me was that young people are interested in the questions I ask 2012 every week. Even though they are not paying tax yet, they want to know that public money is being spent correctly. And this teenager was particularly aware of all the key financial, environmental and legacy issues.

That's not being negative. It's just questioning the work of people spending taxpayers' money.

The organisers of the 2000 Sydney Olympics faced some of the most intense scrutiny ever. The Australian media is particularly fierce.

And what happened? Sydney ended up putting on one of the most successful Games ever.

As I've reported regularly, progress on the Olympic site is racing ahead and few people in the Olympic world are seriously worried that London won't be ready for the Games.

But some believe the cost of the Games - £9.3 billion - is too high in the middle of a recession.

At BBC London, we are interested to know what you think about the Games as we edge closer to the event.

Do you walk past the site every day or are you yet to see any signs that London is the next Olympic host city?

Please contact me with your thoughts, ideas and stories and BBC London will invite some of you to join us in east London to film for a special BBC London TV programme on July 27.

You may wish to comment below but if you'd like to take part in the programme then please email me at yourlondon@bbc.co.uk.

Olympic bosses are still struggling to persuade the sport to move away from the Excel complex in east London and move to Wembley.

2012 need boxing to switch venues because they have ditched a plan to build a temporary arena near the 02 at Greenwich to save money and are playing chess with some of the sports.

But people in boxing,like badminton which was offered the same deal,don't fancy the long journey from the Olympic village at Stratford to north London.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

The fact is there aren't many suitable indoor venues which are big enough for the Games. That's why the capital needs the Olympics.

What do you think?

Somebody suggested the Royal Albert Hall the other day, obviously not a Proms fan, because, of course, it would clash with the concerts.

And we're also expecting to see an array of "Olympic Proms" concerts before and after the Games and you can't expect Sir Simon Rattle to move aside for a few Cuban heavyweights.

The 02 is obviously already taken for gymnastics.

There are companies which turn outdoor stadiums into indoor ones. Could it be possible to turn West Ham's ground into an indoor stadium for boxing? Or would it work at the Emirates which has excellent facilities?

The people in London boxing I've talked to want the sport to stay in east London, which is its spiritual home in the capital.

Surely there must be an alternative to asking boxers to trek across the capital? Remember, this is the Games where athletes were promised they would compete not commute.

But there are no guarantees this will happen across the country. I've been in the Calais region this week and the French are working very hard to attract teams too.

And why not? Calais is just an hour by train from central London and I visited excellent failicites for gymnastics, canoeing, basketball and handball. Dominique Dupilet, the head of the Pas-de Calais council, says he's already signed deals with around 10 teams already.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

And, listen to this! He told me that Calais will benefit more from London hosting the Games than if Paris had won.

This is because, he says, the French always look south when it comes to promoting cities. Calais would probably not have got a look-in if Paris had lived up to their pre-vote billing as favourites in 2005.

There's been a Union Jack in Dupilet's office since London won the vote and -- remarkably -- he says the region is pretty much an English region anyway.

There is no doubt that mainland Europe has the serious potential to snatch away some teams from the UK. Firstly, because there are excellent facilities in France and Germany which international teams have used before ahead of major events.

And, if you are travelling from the other side of the world, an extra hour or so's flight to London from Stuttgart or Brussels is hardly a problem.

Some teams may also fancy the idea of a quieter life away from Britain in the last few weeks before the Games when Olympic fever will be intense.

This isn't new, by the way. Just before the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, I went to visit the American athletics and swimming teams in their pre-Games training camps.

They were staying in Narbonne -- in France!