Christina Ohuruogu Finally Lights London's Olympic Torch

Believe it or not, before today this article was going to be rather critical of Team GB.

Before you question my sanity, yes, I knew we were an unprecedented third on the medal table. I knew we were outperforming other great countries like Australia, Russia, and Germany.

I even sat in front of my TV, cheering like everyone else as Rebecca Adlington, Chris Hoy, and Ben Ainslie clinched their gold medals.

Few people outside the confines of Aberdeen, Scotland, cheered more than I did when David Florence grabbed silver in the men’s C1 canoe-slalom. Witnessing Louis Smith grab a bronze on the pummel horse, or Wendy Houvenaghel pedal to a silver at the Velodrome, were similarly inspiring events.

Gold, silver, or bronze—it didn’t matter to me when it came to Team GB.

But despite all our great performances, I was still not happy. It wasn’t that I wanted more medals. We had already won more than I could dream of. I just wanted to be convinced that we could repeat our success in four years' time.

London 2012 is undoubtedly the big event for Britain as a nation, and it would be great if we could perform well, as a host and as a competitor, in front of the watching world.

Just like China, or any other host nation, we really want to impress in every possible aspect—especially in sport itself. Unfortunately, I hadn’t seen much that suggested we could.

Let's just take a look at the statistics. As I write, Team GB are celebrating 16 gold medals, eight of which have come in cycling. Six more of our 17 “minor” medals (if such a description is even remotely fair) have come from other athletes on two wheels.

At the end of the action in the Laoshan Velodrome, British riders grabbed seven of the 10 available golds. We are also expected to pick up top honours in the BMX, thanks to Shaneze Reade.

Such comprehensive success is not sustainable.  Countries, especially those the size of Great Britain, just don’t dominate disciplines like that.

BBC commentator Hugh Porter let the cat out of the bag somewhat during the early days of the cycling competition, as he discussed the unparalleled technology that went into the British equipment.

He was rather obvious in his assessment—no other country could boast such advanced tools. He left the viewer in no doubt that British riders had a huge technological advantage over their competitors.

Suspiciously, however, such advantages were not mentioned when the gold started flowing. Why pour scorn on the achievements of our athletes?

Putting the equipment to one side for a moment, the other major factor in our recent cycling success has undoubtedly been the Manchester Velodrome.

Opened in 1994, the world-class stadium hosted the cycling events of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Since its opening, it has provided an unparalleled facility for our young bikers' training, proving a crucial factor in the development and Olympic success of Jason Queally, Chris Hoy, et al.

Now, however, many other countries have such a facility (least of all China), and will put it to similar use. They will be just as prepared in 2012.

Equally, seven of a possible 10 golds may suggest “dominance” to you or I, but believe you me, it will indicate something completely different to international sporting directors.

To them, it will suggest a "lack of competition." Expect rival nations to have a lot of cycling funding in place for 2012 as other nations prepare to share the medal wealth.

To give you an indication of the importance of our cycling golds, without them Great Britain would be fighting for seventh in the medal race.

A reasonable performance, certainly—far better than in recent years. But it would not be called an overachievement by any stretch of the imagination.

Rowing is another sport that we have dominated this time, with five golds coming in the water. Matching this result in 2012 will be difficult, but a total of two to four golds should be obtainable. Heck, with Ben Ainslie still in action (Incidentally, can he soon make a case to be our greatest Olympian ever?), one is almost guaranteed.

What was it then, that was leaving me so concerned? What did I see that left me still with reservations?

Well, it was more a case of what I didn't see. With no success in the Bird’s Nest, where were our track and field medals?

Track and field medals are, to me, the acid test of any country’s Olympic performance. They are the most accurate measure of the quality and infrastructure of national athletic clubs. If a country the size of Great Britain doesn’t get any, then you know something is gravely wrong.

Before today, that was exactly the scenario we faced. For a country that has produced athletes like Daley Thompson, Linford Christie, and Kelly Holmes, this was a very worrying state of affairs.

With expectations raised so high after our unrepeatable rowing and cycling successes, are we destined for embarrassment and failure in 2012?

Well, in just over 46 seconds, Christina Ohuruogu triumphantly answered all my concerns.

Sticking to her own game plan, the 2007 World Champion came through the strongest of 400m final contestants to take GB’s first track gold of these games.

Lagging behind her rivals for 300m, it was clear she was racing to the strategy her coaches gave her. With commentators all but writing her off, she showed she had performed the dominant tactical race, striding past her tiring rivals to take the title.

Germaine Mason, a high jumper of Jamaican descent, had early opened our track and field account with a surprise silver medal. But it was Ohurougu’s performance that was really encouraging.

In her impressive victory, she showed that yes, Britain does have the right coaches, facilities, and infrastructure to produce elite track and field athletes. She also showed that British youngsters do indeed have the natural talent required to become Olympic champions.

When added to the performances of Martyn Rooney, Sarah Claxton, Jeanette Kwakye, and Andy Baddeley—all athletes who reached Olympic finals in the past few days—they present compelling evidence that British athletics can really be triumphant in 2012.

Sydney 2000 had Cathy Freeman, Athens 2004 should have had Kostas Kederis. Beijing 2008 wanted Liu Xiang, but still got Yang Wei and many others. Now, it appears London 2012 will find a similar icon.

It may be Ohuruogu (she will be just 28), or it may be another of the aforementioned names. But at least we will have someone to be the poster-athlete of our games.

Much will still depend on the level of lottery funding.  With The Times estimating today that each gold medal has cost £9.4 million in investment, it is questionable whether GB athletics will continue to receive the money it needs to succeed.

After such a great performance, it will be all too easy to rest on our laurels—believing the hard work is done. It isn’t, but in this time of credit crunch reducing sports funding would be understandable. Already, there is talk of a £100 million shortfall in such government funding.

But such problems are for another time. Right now, Britain should be celebrating today’s success, and looking forward to a bright future.

Chris Hoy’s three golds in these Games (the first time a British athlete has managed that since 1908) may be incredible, but it is not sustainable. As a nation, we cannot expect such a performance every four years.

On Ohuruogu’s effort, however, we can. She has shown that track and field medals are there to be competed for, if the athletes are determined enough and talented enough to take maximum advantage of the facilities offered.

If enough do, we could once again reach third in the medal table, without outrageous cycling performances. What’s more, we could create national icons to rank up there with the Thompsons and Christies we all remember.

That is why, in my opinion, today was the real golden day for British athletics, not our profitable weekend.

In Beijing, Ohuruogu lit the torch of British athletic hope that will hopefully stay alight until London 2012—and beyond.

That is something worth celebrating.

Rule Britannia!