Yes, that's one of the lines I've seen given as +=, which I thought plausible given the Alapin comparison.  I see that de la Villa chose it for the Spanish edition of his book, and in the English edition still seemed to think it good for +=, citing e.g. a game Tkachiev-Shirazi.  (Incidentally I'm reminded of an earlier game in which Shirazi, "the master of the bizarre," essayed 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nb4, which didn't turn out well for the Iranian-American-Frenchman.)

There was also a book advocating it by IM Bogdanovich, but I'm not up on what these books say.  Incidentally, a new book by Watson and Schiller classifies it as "ugly."   

Since I brought it up, Reinderman played it again today and drew against GM Nijboer.  Both games went 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dc Nc6 6. Bf4 Qb6; now Bok played 7. Qc1 while Nijboer went 7. b3.

edit:  I recalled a 2009 Yearbook article by Panczyk and Ilczuk which was mainly about 3. e5 Nd5 4. Nc3 e6 5. Nxd5 ed 6. d4 Nc6 7. dc Bxc5 8. Qxd5 Qb6 9. Bc4 Bxf2+ 10. Ke2 0-0 11. Rf1 Bc5 12. Ng5 Nxe5, concluding that with best play White gets a small but long-lasting advantage in the endgame.  About the main line 12...Nd4+ 13. Kd1 Ne6 it said "unfortunately, in recent years Black has had to contend with serious problems here."

Incidentally I noticed GM Reinderman playing it against GM Bok yesterday (1-0 in 23 moves).
Is there a serious challenge to what I take to be the traditional view (e.g. in ECO and NCO) of += with best play?