Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 21 November 2025 – William Hodgson

Reasons for Decision on Liability and Penalty

1.  The RIB Informant presented two charges against Licenced Greyhound Trainer, William Hodgson, alleging that on 4 September 2025, he committed breaches of Rules 156(f) and 156(wa) in that:

(a)  He did misconduct himself by directing foul and threatening language towards Licenced Kennel Hand Brendon Cole; and

(b)  He failed to comply with a lawful directive issued by a Racing Investigator on 6 October 2023, in that he verbally interacted with Licenced Kennel Hand Brendon Cole.

2.  The Rules relevant to the charge (a) is Rule 156(f):

“An offence is committed if a person (including an official):

(f) has, in relation to a greyhound or greyhound racing, done something, or omitted to do something, which, in the opinion of GRNZ or the Racing Integrity Board:
(ii) constitutes misconduct or is negligent or improper.”

3.  Rule 156(wa) provides that:

“An offence is committed if a person (including an official) … fails to comply with any direction.”

4.  The Respondent when served with the Information on 19 September 2025, denied the charges. These were heard on a defended basis on 29 October 2025. After evidence and submissions were presented, the Adjudicative Committee found both charges to be established on the balance of probability. The parties were required to make submissions in writing as to issues of penalty and costs.  They were advised that reasons for the outcome could be given in writing. Penalty submissions in writing have now been received. The reasons for the Decision now follow:

Established Facts

5.  For various reasons, there has been a long history of discord and disharmony between Mr Hodgson, his family and Mr Cole and his family.  The latter operate the “BIG TIME” Racing Kennels. As a result of complaints made to an RIB Racing Investigator, alleging abusive interactions, the Investigator issued directives to Mr Hodgson as follows:

– On 6 October 2023, that he was not to speak or interact with Mr Cole and that if he had any issues with him, he was to report it to the Stewards.

– On 6 November 2024, a further directive was made to Mr Hodgson (following a complaint made to the Investigator) that Mr Hodgson “had verbally abused” a female member of the Cole family at the Hatrick Raceway.

These directives were entered onto Mr Hodgson’s file with the RIB, a copy of which was presented. They remain in force.

6.  The whole purpose of each directive was to prevent any hostile verbal exchange between Mr Hodgson and the Cole family.

7.  The evidence received and accepted by the Adjudicative Committee clearly established as follows.  At the trials on 4 September 2025 at Manawatu Greyhound Raceway, Mr Cole, having caught his greyhound and while departing from the track, was subject to abuse from Mr Hodgson.  The Adjudicative Committee finds that this was initiated by Mr Hodgson. Mr Cole’s evidence, largely confirmed by the track curator, Mr Bell, was that Mr Hodgson began yelling at him … (with) “abusive language and called me a c..t, a liar and a w….r   … and also threatened me by stating, “I have plans for you that you’re not going to like.” His evidence was that Mr Hodgson’s tone was aggressive and the abuse continued through the gate as it was opened by Mr Bell.

8.  Mr Hodgson claimed that he did not call Mr Cole the foul names alleged and only addressed any words to Mr Bell to the effect that Mr Cole was “a lying p…k”.  The Adjudicative Committee rejects that contention. The independent witness, (Mr Bell’s) evidence was that he heard Mr Hodgson initiate the exchange, and as Mr Cole was leaving the gate, he heard Mr Hodgson say in a loud voice, “You’re a f….g  c..t, you’re just an a……e and you just wait, I’ve got plans for you and you’re not going to like it.” Mr Bell’s evidence was clear and he said that Mr Hodgson’s tone was “very aggressive” and he was concerned that he might have to intervene between the pair.

9.  Whilst the precise words heard by Mr Bell may differ slightly from those complained of by Mr Cole, Mr Bell did not in fact hear all of the words initially used by Mr Hodgson.  The especially egregious insult of “c..t” falls clearly into the category of insulting, offensive, vulgar conduct towards another Licensee.

10.  Mr Hodgson’s claims that he was “only talking to Mr Bell” does not make sense, and is not accepted. Indeed, at the conclusion of his evidence, he said he was sorry for the words he used and which he essentially acknowledges.

11.  The purpose of the earlier two directives given by the Investigator, Ms Murrow, was to precisely prevent what occurred. The evidence is clear that the abusive exchange was initiated by Mr Hodgson.

12.  Rule 156(f) provides an offence is committed if the RIB is of the opinion that the behaviour constitutes misconduct or is improper. Misconduct is unacceptable behaviour as a professional person (which is a Licensee under the Rules) which violates ethical standards and Rules. “Improper” includes wrongful and unacceptable behaviour that damages the expectations and requirements of the GRNZ profession. The profane, extremely vulgar, offensive use of words to describe and disparage another Licensee at the Raceway trials was improper and comprised misconduct. It was additionally, a contravention of the clear directive given to Mr Hodgson, which he deliberately ignored.

13.  Both charges were clearly established.

Penalty

14.  The Adjudicative Committee has now received witness submissions from the Informant and Mr Hodgson (plus a character reference). The Informant has referred to the well known relevant principles of “sentencing” including the importance of deterrence, both to Licensees in general, and specific to Mr Hodgson.

15.  The Informant refers to misconduct penalties in thoroughbred racing cases for abusive language ($500 – $600 fine) and one greyhound case (fine of $1,400).  But the offence of Mr Hodgson falls into a more serious category, due to the combination of the threatening behaviour and deliberately breaching the lawful and proper directive of the Racing Investigator.  The Informant emphasised that the Adjudicative Committee should impose a sanction which is designed to uphold and maintain the standards expected of Licensees and to protect the integrity of Greyhound Racing. He submits that a starting point of a fine (total of $1,500) is appropriate, subject to any adjustment for aggravating and mitigating features the Adjudicative Committee may find to exist.

16.  Mr Hodgson submitted that he has been training greyhounds for over 45 years and presently trains mostly syndicated dogs in which he has a part share. His family plays a major part in his training operation. He has had some health issues and any suspension would harm others in his family.  A character reference providing support from the former President of Greyhound Racing New Zealand is helpful to him.

17.  Much of what Mr Hodgson states in his penalty submission, comprise arguments critical of the RIB Investigators or Stewards. He says that the investigation and directives were “unfair”.  This tends to illustrate an absence of genuine remorse or insight.

Outcome

18.  A suspension or similar penalty is not warranted, but fines need to reflect:

(a)  The need to uphold the integrity and standards of this profession (for that is what this is).

(b)  The need for all Licensees who operate in any profession to adhere to proper standards and Rules of the profession in which they have the privilege of participating only because of the Licence given to them.

(c)  The need to deter other Licensees.

(d)  The fact that in 2015, Mr Hodgson has a previous breach of Rule 88(1)(f) for Improper Conduct.  He directed argumentative, self entitled and threatening words to a Chairman of Stewards, for which, after a defended hearing, he was fined $400, plus costs and witness expenses of $750.  In the course of that hearing, the then Adjudicative Committee received further evidence from a female manager of Wanganui Greyhounds, that she also had in the past, been the subject of abuse from Mr Hodgson.

19.  It is probable that Mr Hodgson has acted in the heat of the moment, because he has a short fuse.  But he has contributed to the Greyhound Code for many years.

20.  The deliberate disobedience of the directives is aggravating of the Abusive Misconduct Charge. It is subject to a separate penalty, so is not treated as an aggravating aspect of the lead charge. For that Misconduct Charge, a starting point of $1,000 is fixed. It is not aggravating that a Respondent chose to defend a charge, but simply is an absence of mitigation for admitting it. The expression of sorrow which came late at the hearing, had a hollow ring to it, and the continued criticism of the RIB, and of the Investigator, in his penalty submissions, does not appear to reflect genuine remorse.

21.  His previous offence in 2015 is an aggravating feature. It requires an uplift of $250.

22.  For the breach of 156(wa) in failing to comply with the directives, a separate fine is imposed. As explained, it was designed to prevent exactly what Mr Hodgson did.  A starting point of $350 is adopted. There are no relevant separate aggravating or mitigating features, and criticism of the RIB and Investigator negate any true remorse.

23.  Accordingly, Mr Hodgson is:

(a)  Fined $1,250 for the breach of Rule 156(f); and

(b)  Fined $350 for the breach of Rule 156(wa).

Costs

24.  The Informant has not sought an order that Mr Hodgson pay a sum towards the costs it has incurred. He is fortunate, as it is often the case that where proceedings are defended and failed, a figure of 60% of the actual costs is awarded to the Informant.

25.  However, the Adjudicative Committee and its administrative staff, have incurred expenses in excess of $2,000 in dealing with and hearing of the Information in Palmerston North. An order of costs in the sum of $1,200 is justified.

Summary

26.  Mr Hodgson is fined $1,250 for the breach of Rule 156(f) and $350 for the breach of Rule 156(wa).

27.  He is ordered to pay $1,200 towards the costs of the Adjudicative Committee of the Racing Integrity Board.