Originally Posted by WiDDoW_MaKeR
Dana's dealings with the Casino aren't really personal though. That is also business... even if it's a personal habit for Dana. That would still be considered Dana's business relationship with the Casino. After all... gambling is the business that the Casino is in. So... as I said before... what they did was a slap in the face of Dana and a show of disrespect. They should be grateful for someone who is bringing them so much business at an individual level, as well as a through the UFC.
Basically, they are saying... hey, thanks for all of the business that you bring in with your UFC events. Also, thank you for gambling away large amounts of money and tipping our staff in an outrageous manner... however we are going to cut your gambling credit line in half because we don't think you're good for it. Hell, they already said that he refuses to be comped. Most people in his line of work would take the comp and not pay **** to begin with.
Both viewpoints have some validity. But we don't know the full story, do we? So we can't rush to judgement either way, if we are not in possession of all the facts. We don't know what Dana's habits are with his credit. But he has apparently used his dealings in his personal life as grounds to punish the casino with a reasonably big call in his professional life. So we can't give him a free pass.
On the other hand, it does seem like he's a guy the casino wants to keep on their good side. Apparently they didn't, and you get the sense that if his personal financial conduct was THAT bad there would be more information available. So there is fault there too. Like I said, I'm not taking a strong stand one way or the other.