I wouldn't be writing about a pitch for a new article, I'd be writing to draw attention to the misinfo in an article that was already published.

.

You are right, of course.  The pitch address was the only means of contact I could find.  In the old days, a snail mail letter to the editor was possible but the website lacks even that information as far as I can see.

Readers could also want to write about myriad other topics for which the "pitch" address would be entirely inappropriate.

Finally, even the "pitch" address is indeed hard to find.  There's no "Contact" link in the footer.  The "About Bicycling [Magazine]" link in the footer takes you to a page that has zero contact info in the text.  You have to scroll down to past where it looks like the article has already ended and notice what looks like a banner ad that says "How to Pitch a Story to Bicycling".  THAT link takes you to an article with a wall of text with the email address buried in the middle.

Nevertheless, I wrote to that address weeks ago (because it was the only one available).  Not surprisingly, I didn't hear back.

that was well-hidden

But Bicycling magazine just turned back the clock a few decades, running an article about the supposed incompleteness of plant proteins.  Welcome back to the 70s/80s.

I was going to send Bicycling a link to my protein article but if they actually have a Contact link on their website, it's exceptionally well-hidden.