Special Thanks to RailRiders Gear for retweeting this link. RailRiders continues to be a supporter of faux explorer Ripley Davenport in spite of the evidence he is a fraud. http://ripleydavenport.net/ See the Railrider page here: https://www.railriders.com/bio-ripley-davenport-tr-79.html

I am fed up.

The Long Riders Guild is the creation and personal bully pulpit and clubhouse of Michael Riley and Barbara Whittome aka Cuchullaine and Basha O'Reilly. They make up rules in their clubhouse based on a carefully crafted narrative about themselves that none may question. In fact, alternate viewpoints and active discussion are simply not allowed. The O'Reillys reign supreme in their tiny kingdom.

I know, because I made the mistake of commenting on one of Cuchullaine's O'Reilly's editorials in which I essentially agreed with him. Rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, O'Reilly excoriated me for hearsay sins and declared that I would never be accepted as a member of the LRG (though I never aspired to join).

Having now done a good amount of research on the factual background of the O'Reillys, I can say that I have found the O'Reillys to be hysterical, cowardly, unprofessional, ethically challenged and deceitful. This, in spite of some arguably good work in collecting and reprinting historical writings regarding equestrian travel. Yet their true skills seem to lie in self-promotion and quixotic quests against imagined evil. Editors of respected equestrian publications in both Europe and North America reach for the "eye-roll" emoticon when asked about the O'Reillys. Sadly, their response to very basic, legitimate questions about their public claims of expertise is to flop between being righteously indignant and whining "victims". They declare themselves the innocent victims of "cyberstalking". More on the questions they can't seem to answer can be found here.

As part of their campaign against me (their imagined stalker) they have asked that I not contact them by email, a request I have honored. Hence, this open letter, which they may read if they choose.

For the reader who has stumbled across this internet soap opera and is interested in equestrian travel, please don't let this dispute dampen your interest in getting out there on a horse. It's a fine way to travel whether for a day ride or a thousand miles. My caution is that when dealing with the O'Reilly's a grain of salt is in order. You may take this letter into consideration, or not, as you see fit. You at least have another perspective on the O'Reillys. I can substantiate the assertions and statements in the letter below with facts.

(Technical note: Several of the links below go to documents in .pdf format and contain "sticky note" commentary. If your browser doesn't automatically allow you to read those notes, download the file and open it with .pdf friendly software.)

To: Cuchullaine and Basha O'Reilly, holed up somewhere in France.

Mr. and Mrs O'Reilly,

The purpose of this letter is to make permanently public my response to your irresponsible shenanigans over the last months. Since early 2014 you actively engaged with others to contrive a false allegation of cyberstalking against me and to promulgate that allegation on the internet. You have also presented your allegation and supporting documents to both the Police and City Attorney in my hometown of Bozeman, Montana. As an allegation, "cyberstalking" must contain some element of genuine threat. I simply asked questions about inconsistencies in your professional narratives and claims. And, when you requested I not contact you I complied with that request. You labor under a serious delusion, however, if you think that contacting OTHER people to develop background and seek answers, which you yourselves refuse to provide, is "cyberstalking". It is quite bizarre that you, Cuchullaine, as a self-proclaimed journalist would not realize that your definition of cyberstalking would criminalize journalism.

The resulting investigation by Bozeman Police found that your allegations were without merit and your claims of being threatened were unsupported by ANY actual facts. The informaiton you submitted had plenty of indignation, plenty of hyperbolic non-sequitors and demonstrations of knowledge with no bearing whatsoever on the subject but no evidence whatsoever of being threatened. Nevertheless, you persisted and took your allegations to the Cybercrime Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Is the Supreme Court next? The local office of the FBI has interviewed me and has concluded their investigation. It is no surprise that the FBI's investigation into your preposterous allegations agrees with that of the Bozeman Police. You should be ashamed of making baseless criminal allegations. Your activities only reinforce the notion that the expertise you claim is a delicate bubble of your own fabrication which cannot stand the simplest scrutiny.

This all began when you swallowed, hook line and sinker, similar allegations by Ripley and Laura Davenport. The Davenports are well documented as delusional frauds. Their allegations to the Bozeman Police in 2013 were also found to be without merit. You made common cause with the Davenports (and Earl de Blonville also of dubious credentials) to dispense justice on me, your imagined "cyberstalker", without doing the least bit of research on the Davenports or de Blonville. Inebriated with your own self-importance, you charged off in defense of the indefensible. So much for your journalistic skills.

All of this occured because I took an interest in writing a story about how today's self-described explorers use a website and unverified credentials to "build their brand" with sponsors, the media, individual donors, public speaking agencies, etc. The story took on greater depth (and frankly, interest) when you and others resorted to attacking the credentials, character and morals of the person asking questions, a technique which is sadly too common today at all levels of public discourse. Your efforts to portray me as a "poison mist" and a cyber sadist are childish, laughably grotesque and patently false.

I would draw your attention to this recently posted page from your website: http://www.thelongridersguild.com/chronology.htm . In it you suggest that I "evaded arrest" by the FBI because I invoked "freedom of speech" (as if "freedom of speech" were some cunning, criminal tactic). While "freedom of speech" plays into the overall question of communications over the internet, it was NOT the reason your allegations were dismissed. Your allegations simply were false, unbelievable, unverifiable, fabricated, unsupported by evidence, etc. To quote the FBI, your claims didn't "vet". Bombast, indignation, hysteria and melodrama are no substitute for facts. If we can't trust the FBI to know the difference between genuine facts and manufactured hysteria, who can we trust?

You also claim on your chronology page that yet another European police force is investigating your claims. Since you have a proud and well documented history of naming names, I challenge you to name that agency (at least let me provide them my personal cell phone number). I also challenge you to name the French horse trainer who you claim ruined your horses and caused your cancellation of The World Ride. If you fail to name the agency and the trainer, it will demonstrate again your penchant for irresponsible and self-serving hyperbole. As we say in Montana, "put up or shut up".

Names, dates, places... facts- these are the foundation of genuine journalism.

The "threat" that you allege is entirely in your own heads. There is not a scintilla of evidence that I have ever theatened either of you. Basha, you should be especially ashamed. Your unbidden and unwelcome emails to my family members, claiming that you are in fear of bodily harm from me, are unconscionable and inexcusable. It takes a special kind of narcissism to imagine yourself in danger from someone thousands of miles and an ocean away.

You and the band of other thin-skinned explorers have now wasted the time and resources of multiple police authorities in the US and Europe. If you have any personal integrity you will clarify the inconsistencies in your resumes and then apologize to all parties involved, publicly and sincerely.

This "cyberstalker" tantrum is another in a string of "tempest in teapot" furors you periodically raise in an effort to grasp relevance and publicity for your self-annointed expertise. You've railed against the movie "Hidalgo", demanded that 3M corporation kowtow to your indignation, bleated against a horse race in Mongolia, excoriated the Royal Geographic Society and Explorers Club and blamed a French horse trainer for your own incompetence, demanding, along the way INTERNATIONAL ACTION to regulate horse trainers. You're the internet version of a couple wearing sandwich boards and ranting on a corner in Times Square. Oh, I forgot the book about the danger of "meat-eating" horses. Really, only you two can make this stuff up.

I read your expose on "doormats as saddle pads" on your website. Your style in those letters is at least consistent. Bloviating, show-off rambling digressions over several pages when the job could have been done in less than a page. No wonder the 3M lawyers ignored you at first, they must have thought a monkey had stolen a typewriter. And then the response was truly beautiful- they matched your tedious style perfectly, spending the same number of pages to say "You've got the wrong people, knucklehead!". Are you sure you went to journalism school?

As I have often stated, my original interest in researching the "explorer" claims of people like Ripley Davenport, Earl de Blonville, Mikael Strandberg and ultimately yourselves and others was to write a story about how the implied "truthiness" of the internet enables some in the exploration community to hyperbolize, embellish and yes, fabricate their stories and credentials. I am still dedicated to that task and am inspired by the irony of Cuchullaine's own words, "In such a horse world the expert is all too often the one who has a talent, not for science, but self-promotion".

I also have a second interest, to clear my good name from your efforts and those of others to label me a cyberstalker. I expect to see the various pages that reference me as a cyberstalker removed. I refer in particular to the ExplorersWeb page, which, in a remarkable display of yellow journalism, presented your allegations without contacting me or offering a chance for me to respond while publicly calling me a criminal.

Beyond posting this public letter I have two courses of action available to me, either singly or in tandem. The first would be a civil suit for libel. It would be expensive and it would be doubtful that I would recoup my costs and/or the inevitable judgement against you, given my understanding of your current financial circumstances. The second would be to press for criminal charges of cyber-harassment and criminal conspiracy.

There is a difference between cyberstalking and cyber-harassment and it hinges on the presence or absence of threats. The relevant Federal statute pertains to use of electronic communications not to threaten, but just to harass, intimidate, embarrass and annoy. The key to this statute is "intent". It is clear to me that while your allegation demanded my arrest, you engaged in additional activity that had no relevance to a criminal investigation. By including in your distribution list dozens of my professional colleagues, family, local press outlets, etc. who would have no relevance to a police investigation, it is clear that your intention was to harass, intimidate, embarrass and annoy. Should an investigation of your activities relative to cyber-harassment go forward, it would subpoena and review the email correspondence between yourselves, the Davenports, de Blonville, etc. If those emails reveal discussions of "getting even", then, well, your goose is cooked. You have already handed the FBI voluminous proof of the wide-net you cast in publicizing your allegations.

Then there is "criminal conspiracy". You clearly coordinated with and coached 8 people to produce the cookie-cutter, template driven "affidavits" that you used as supporting evidence to your allegation. Again, if communications with those 8 people show an intention to "get even", etc. it will reinforce the truth of your "intent". It may also drag those 8 individuals into legal jeopardy as well as co-conspirators.

Lastly, there is the list of "120 Victims" that was part of your supporting evidence. As you know, the vast majority of people on that list appeared without their knowledge or permission Tim Lavery and Matt Nelson being two who contacted you for removal and apology. It's probably not illegal to misrepresent those people without their permission, it's just shabby, shabby form.

So, I am weighing my options. Consider yours, and do the right thing with a retraction of your allegations and a public apology to everyone who was dragged into your pathetic attempt to avoid legitimate scrutiny of your public, professional claims. Find the fortitude and the intellectual integrity to speak to the facts instead of your fantasy fears.

Kent Madin

For more background:

cuchullaineoreilly.net ripleydavenport.net earldeblonville.net

the long riders guild, lrgaf, long riders guild, cuchullaine o'reilly, basha o'reilly, long riders guild, the long riders guild, lrgaf, long riders guild, cuchullaine o'reilly, basha o'reilly, long riders guild,the long riders guild, lrgaf, long riders guild, cuchullaine o'reilly, basha o'reilly, long riders guild,the long riders guild, lrgaf, long riders guild, cuchullaine o'reilly, basha o'reilly, long riders guild,