There's a HUGE difference between disagreeing with the judges on how they scored and accusing them of corrupt judging. One involves saying "I think we could have scored higher" and/or "I don't understand why we scored poorly in this element." The other is saying "The judges are conspiring together make sure Davis and White are winning no matter what" and/or "The judges are accepting money/trading votes/whatever so this team can win."
I think that even though he could have said it more eloquently, I think Scott is talking the former not the latter. And I think that's fine. It's perfectly fine to question how a decision is made and I agree with the earlier poster that it is also reasonable to not hold feelings in. That said, there's also a big difference between "expressing your feelings/disappointment" and "I'm just going to completely rant angrily about the result with no regard for anyone else."
There does seem to be fans that believe that Davis and White seem to be the benefactors or corrupt judging and politicking, which is absolutely laughable because it seems to take a miracle for USFS to acknowledge ice dancing at home.
But it does bother me, seriously, that Davis and White are painted as a team that is getting favoritism or are given marks, especially when Doris and other posters spend a LOT OF TIME explaining why they got the marks they got. Again I think it's reasonable to argue magnitude or question maybe details -- "I think Davis and White should have only been in the lead by 2 or 3 points" or "I don't agree that they should have gotten that much GOE or any GOE" -- but I think it's uncalled for to dismiss their victory to some vague "they got it because of politics/corrupt judging" speculation and providing no facts to back up that case.
And I think while Scott is maybe putting a subtle dig at his teammates, he's definitely not saying, "Davis and White are the benefactors of corrupt judging" either.