But you didn't take advantage of that particular benefit; instead, you used another, unmentioned one – attacking a similarly weakened opponent's hero. And that's much more serious – main heroes are cut off from their treasure for at least a day. And here, there were even two of them.

Someone always ends up at a disadvantage, regardless of the color.

The thing is, with this setup, in most cases, you can and should aim for the 121 strategy, except in some special situations.
And then, it's the red player who ends up at a disadvantage, and this is directly related to the color. And again, the fact that we didn't go for it and instead stalled on the rush was very risky, and if you had capitalized on that turn, taking advantage of the blue color, we would have deserved it.

The point is this: you say the color decided. No, it didn't – for the simple reason that you could clearly have won without such a risky rush. 122 – you should expect that the red player might arrive soon. Thanks to the blue color, you took a Castle, you had archers, and this almost guaranteed that you could escape or buy your way out if necessary. Then, Tazar arrives, and what does he see? Valya is standing at the Garrison with 5 archers. Why does she need 5 archers, if not to make it harder to buy her way out? Furthermore, a scout is standing at the Garrison with the entire army, including 6 angels. Why does he need to stand at the Garrison if he can stand further away so that he can't be reached, and then bring the army later?

So, Tazar arrived and killed everyone, yes. But if Valya had been at the Garrison with 1-2 archers and a couple of heroes on the rush, Tazar would have arrived, and what would have happened? Well, he would have spent a turn to reach them, he would have driven Valya away, he would have killed the scouts. And that's it, Valya would have bought her way out in the nearest Castle, troops would have been brought in, and it's scary to imagine what would have happened to poor Tazar.

I find it difficult to understand how you can claim that the color decided, when you put yourself at such a disadvantage. If you can explain to me that you had some necessity for the above, then I will agree that the color decided. But as it is, I see a risky game and mistakes on both sides, but yours turned out to be fatal.

I believe that both colors are good in their own way. I can understand that someone might not want to play the same color for many games in a row; I myself encountered this in Jeb's tournament, wanting to play blue, but ending up playing red for 4 games. But at the same time, the statement that the color decided, and that it's all a conspiracy and discrimination, is incorrect and, in my opinion, cannot be considered an argument.