A little hyperbolic but not as much as you think. Sotnikova's 3-3 should have been downgraded, and she should have received an edge call. How many points does she lose there? The step sequence levels should have been swapped, that's another 2 points. Her PCS had never been above 63.99 her entire career, then at Euros (when she did NOT have "the skate of her life") her PCS jumped to almost 70 and then 74 at Olympics, essentially tying Kim for the highest of all time. It looks to me like the fix was in by the time of Euros, and one has to throw out her PCS score from there as well as Olympics and consider those rigged. So in a fair competition consistent with what Sotnikova had done in her career ... what kind of boost do you think she should have received on 63.99 for skating like she did in Sochi? Mid-high 60s fair? That's another 6-8 points.
So PCS + Levels = 8-10 points, then you have the downgrades on the jumps, plus whatever excessive GOEs she received.
And that's why the outcome was so outrageous to so many people, from casual fans to skating insiders, from countries all over the world. These weren't two close skaters separated by a point or two and the competition just happened to go one way over another, winners win and losers stop crying. This was a case where, had the competition been fair, Kim would have been 10 points(?) ahead of Sotnikova, but suddenly the Russian wins by 5?
ETA: And that's just the free skate! We're not even talking about the short program scores, which were also subject to a lot of debate.
Actually, her 3Z(e)+3T< would still get a BV of 8.9 points (instead of 10.1), and GOE would be -1 to -2 with the flutz, since it was executed well with preceding steps and good height and speed. With the GOE deduction, it would have scored about 8 points, I'd imagine, instead of 11.1 that she got.
And then with the sequences being level 3, she would have lost 1.2 points in BV, which is about 1.4 points with GOE consideration (since GOE bonus on 3.3 versus 3.6 BV is negligible.
That's about 5 points less.
Also, Sotnikova had 69.60 PCS at Europeans (so she had certainly been above 63.99 -- both hers, Gold's and Julia's PCS shot up from the beginning of the season). I still think 74 points was way too high, but above 70 PCS for Sotnikova I could picture being justified (Lip should have been below 70), with Mao's PCS a point or two higher than hers. I also thought she didn't deserve more than 33 PCS in the SP (again, getting PCS on par with Kim was ridiculous, even if Sotnikova did have her best SP ever).
So with her PCS dropping 2 points in the SP, and 4 points in the LP, and with the deductions on her 3-3 and her step sequence, she would have lost about 11 points, ending up with a final score of 213, which would have been enough for bronze. 210-211 if we reduce her GOE, which was pretty high on certain elements. I would have then swapped Kim and Kostner's PCS, giving Kostner the win. Saying she deserved bronze is totally legit, but saying she deserved 20 points less is too extreme... at the
very worst, Sotnikova should have scored 13-14 points less than she did.