Another faction among them maintained that the third contestant’s stake belongs exclusively to the second (1).
This view is even more unsound than the preceding one. Its proponent seems to have noticed that the second both outpaces and is outpaced, and therefore applied both descriptions to him: he deprives him of his own stake and awards it to the first because he was himself beaten, yet hands him the third’s stake because he beat the third.
But this is a mistake, for the first has outstripped them both with an unqualified victory. Even if he had beaten only (2) the third, he would still not be entitled to the third’s stake—so how can the second claim it when he has been beaten by someone who has likewise beaten the third?!
As for their statement that “he is both victor and vanquished, so both attributes must be taken into account,” the reply is that, in reality, he is vanquished; his being a victor is nullified by the precedence of the first, for any benefit accruing from his having come ahead is valid only when no one else has outpaced him.

Section
If one of the two stake-providers comes in first while the muhallil and the other cross the finish line together, the muhallil receives nothing. According to the first group, the winner claims both his own stake and that of the other contestant.
According to the view under discussion, however, the other contestant’s stake remains his (3): the muhallil does not take it because he did not beat him, and the first does not take it because the muhallil’s participation was intended solely so that he himself might lawfully claim the stake (4).