You keep asking for a burden of proof which is just a silly schoolyard argument.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this.
"I think this thing might be true."
"I can't give you a specific reason why I think it's true, but it's possible."
"Then why do you think it might be true?"
"Please stop asking me to support the claim I just made, it's childish."
About 50+ times you have argued that the Phillies can't be racist because they do things like draft Crawford and trade for Segura. Which is all besides the point and the equivalent of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist argument",
It's a bit wild that I have to keep saying this different ways, but here we go: my argument is not that the Phillies can't be racist because they have acquired players of color.
My contention is that your argument is empty because you have provided nothing in the way of meaningful evidence that unconscious racial bias is involved in the construction of this roster.
I noted this previously, but I guess it didn't take:
No, the lack of any potential bias in those two things doesn't exclude the possibility that bias was at play in Crawford's benching, I hear you on that and it's a fair point. But the inverse certainly doesn't make an argument for it being a factor either, especially when injuries are involved and the Phillies are notorious for making poor decisions with drafting and development. I'm pointing to Occam's Razor on this one.
The Kingery / Crawford / Segura item was purely emphasized because you thought it was a possible argument for bias - which I don't agree with when viewing "the big picture".
"It's possible" - yes, and it's certainly possible that your own biases have led you down this road of thinking despite a lack of supporting evidence.