The two features described above are the experimental facts in which the $f_1(1420)$ was accepted as a resonance, but we have shown that they are consequence of the decay modes of the $f_1(1285)$ and one does not have to introduce any new resonance to account for these facts. The absence of the $\pi a_0(980)$ decay mode of the $f_1(1420)$ in all but one experiment [@Barberis:1998by], is a fact that we have exploited here, because if it were a resonance which decays mostly into $K^*\bar K$, it would unavoidably have a width into $\pi a_0(980)$ of the order of 17%, which has not been observed. The 5% $\pi a_0(980)$ decay mode attributed to the $f_1(1420)$ in Ref. [@Barberis:1998by] was a guess based on the lack of any other interpretation of the shoulder found for this mode around 1400 MeV in the study of the decay of the $f_1(1285)$. We found a natural explanation for this broad peak which then does not require the existence of the $f_1(1420)$.

Altogether, our study leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that the $f_1(1420)$ is not a resonance but simply the manifestation of the $K^*\bar K$ and $\pi a_0(980)$ decay modes of the $f_1(1285)$ around 1420 