It would have been more accurate to say "It will be interesting to see how well a gross mischaracterisation of Gladwell's claim stands up to empirical testing".
He probably imagines Gladwell's claim to be, and I'm quoting from Outliers, "In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours." You'll note this unequivocally contradicts the claim you just made.
That Gladwell later wrote a much, much less popular article for the New Yorker in which he walked back that totally outlandish claim doesn't justify indignation at people remembering what he wrote.
Because he's repudiated the idea that he or any other informed researcher claimed 10,000 hours was some magic number, or that practice alone is a substitute for talent: http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/complexity-and-...
It would have been more accurate to say "It will be interesting to see how well a gross mischaracterisation of Gladwell's claim stands up to empirical testing".