that the strength found in this channel around 1400 MeV is not tied to the $f_1(1420)$ resonance but to the $f_1(1285)$.

There is one more argument that we can bring in favour of the former interpretation. Indeed, let us assume that the $f_1(1420)$ is a genuine resonance. If it decays into $K^*\bar K$ and this channel exhausts the width as found experimentally, we can get the coupling $g_{f_1(1420),K^*\bar K}$ by means of Eq. (\[Eq:4\]) and we find $$\label{Eq:20}
g_{f_1(1420),K^*\bar K}=4256\ \rm MeV\, .$$ With this coupling we can reevaluate the triangle diagram of Fig. \[Fig:5\], simply replacing the coupling $g_{f_1(1285),K^*\bar K}$ with the new one. Then we would use Eq. (\[Eq:5\]) to get the cross section for $f_1(1420) \to \pi a_0(980)$, replacing the $f_1(1285)$ propagator by the one of the $f_1(1420)$. The other change might be the constant $C$, but this constant, appearing in the $a+b\to 1+R$ vertex (see Fig. \[Fig:1\]) is related to the resonance production (irrespective of the decay channels). Since one is dealing with high energies of the order of hundreds of GeV in these reactions, and the masses of the $f_1(1285)$ and $f_1(1420)$ are similar, on statistical grounds we should expect similar production rates for both 