resonances, and hence $C$ should be similar in the two cases. Assuming $C$ is the same for both resonances, what we see in Fig. \[Fig:6\] is a shape for $f_1(1420) \to \pi a_0(980)$ production very different from the one coming from the $f_1(1285)$ decay, which reflects a $f_1(1420)$ Breit-Wigner structure, and most importantly, with a very large strength, which is not seen in any experiment. Even this signal reduced by a factor five should be clearly seen experimentally, and on statistical grounds it is not easy to justify that the production of the $f_1(1420)$ should be reduced by a factor five with respect to that of the $f_1(1285)$.

There is yet another factor to note. When performing the previous calculation that involves the $f_1(1420)$ propagator we had to calculate the width of the $f_1(1420)$ into $\pi a_0(980)$. We find that (see next section for a more detailed evaluation) $$\label{Eq:21}
\frac{BR(f_1(1420)\to\pi a_0(980))}{BR(f_1(1420)\to K^* \bar K)}\simeq 0.17\, .$$ This is a fraction that could not be missed and has not been found in any experiment where this decay mode has been searched for. Only in Ref. [@Barberis:1998by] a 5% ratio was invoked by guessing that the shoulder seen in that decay mode 