And how do you support this conclusion? If you had done any research, you wouldn't claim that 10 000 hours is a randomly generated figure. It's not. As I mentioned there is empirical evidence supporting it, independent of Gladwell's publicizing.
There is no need to make large causal leaps in applying this theory, correlational findings are provisionally sufficient since pointing the causal arrows in the opposite direction (mastery -> 10 000h) is nonsensical. There are potentially mitigating factors such as 'natural talent' -which is also contestable- but even so, such 'talent' is not a substitute for the practice necessary for mastery.