One possibility is that it was victor adornatus and victrix adornata.
The participle adornatus/adornata/adornatum comes from the verb adornare and means roughly "decorated" or "adorned".
The two expressions I gave translate as "adorned victor" and "adorned victress".
The word "victress" may be old-fashioned English, but I use it to keep the distinction that is present in Latin.
In Latin the participle (like an adjective) follows the gender of the noun.
It now happens that the different forms of the participle and the two genders of the winner all decline somewhat differently.
The plurals would be victores adornati and victrices adornatae.
If you wish to refer to both male and female recipients of the prize collectively, you can use the masculine version alone or you can combine them into victores adornati et victrices adornatae.
You mentioned in a comment that the second word ended in -um.
If that was adornatum, then neuter was used.
This is ungrammatical, since the words victor and victrix are masculine and feminine, respectively.
It is also possible that the second word is meant to mean "decoration" rather than "decorated", but I am not familiar with a word adornum meaning such a thing.
In this case the phrase is probably meant to translate as "prize of the victor/victress" or "prize for the victor/victress".
This would require declining victor and victrix into genitive or dative: victoris/victricis or victori/victrici.
It seems most likely to me that adornatus/adornata was meant, and there is a grammatical error.
But I could be mistaken, and exact information of the spelling or ideas from other users may convince me to change my mind.
