JS,my edition is okay.The reviews are right there for me to see.

No facts here but just speculation...

...the info release for the two new balls was yesterday, the fact that they appeared online with a striking amount of detail to the general public before that date probably didn't sit well with EBI

I think the "pull" might be a couple of things.  Ebonite may not be advertising currently but they do represent a big chunk of the industry and therefore future advertising dollars.

There might be non disclosure agreement in place in return for receiving test balls and BTM was in effect stealing their thunder in announcing their new product prematurely.

I believe this is what they call a 1st world problem, btw.  Censorship certainly exists in other countries and I don't think any of those folks would feel inconvenienced by getting to read a ball review a few weeks later. 

Hello all,
The reasoning is simple, we goofed. All brands provide us with a product release date, which is date the ball is on the market to the public, as well as an information release date, the date where the ball is announced. We have agreements in place with all brands to keep these ball names/colors/existence out of the public eye. This is done for a number of reasons. Each brand has their own reasons but for the most part it is to
A. Not kill sales of current product by customers waiting for the new ball that in some cases would not be available for months.
B. There are advertising strategies in place based of those information release dates.
There was a miscommunication between our staff and the names were put up early on the website. As a result, we failed to comply with the release dates on the 811c/t and mass eruption. When we were notified (by a reader, not EBI) that the names had been put up on the website early, I had them removed. We would have done the same for 900 Global, Brunswick, Storm or any other brand of balls we receive for review.
Hope this answers any questions.