Are intentional and unintentional acts properly considered equivalent? IMO no.
The opportunity to compete at the Olympic games is a privilege, not a profession. Someone who has served their sentence can absolutely go on to earn a living, but not necessarily be entitled to return to their chosen profession. Plenty of people are barred from continuing in their chosen profession on the basis of a single infraction, deservedly so.
If we say the victim's voice is most important and matters more than the general public, does intention matter? Maybe to some victims, but not for all.
The deaths of the people who got killed by Matthew Broderick were preventable, if he had listened to the police officer who warned him about the route he wanted to take, these people might still be alive today. Regardless of his intentions. That Broderick got off so lightly, did not sit well with the family of the people he killed. He went on making a lot more movies and plays, winning awards. While the victim's family had to watch it happen.
If one is allowed to be successful in their career, why should the next not be?
Both got their punishment, both regretted their actions.
What I can make up from the news reports about this case, the athlete didn't fly to the UK with the intention to have sex with the girl. We do not know if this is true. But that was what he said in his statement to the court. And what was probably believed, otherwise he wouldn't have been released from prison so soon.
In these cases, there is not one answer, let alone a good answer.
To give some cultural insight in the Dutch mind:
I do not think many people here in NL consider competing in the Olympics a privilege. It's a challenge.
When you see interviews with Dutch athletes, almost no one talks about what an honour it is to be on this stage. There seems to be no difference to them to compete at the Olympics or at any other World or European championship. It is about winning, getting the medal, defeating your opponent, but not about representing the Netherlands. National pride is not a big thing here. The main difference is for most sports, there are more cameras at the Olympics. Most sports do not get the amount of screentime, except football.
It's a pragmatic approach: There are certain qualifications you have to meet to be allowed to compete. Having a criminal record yes/no is not one of them.
And that is probably why this entire case is not a big thing in the Netherlands. It wasn't a thing at all till the foreign press started to publish about it.
On a Dutch Christian news website they did a poll whether or not he should be allowed to compete. 50% said yes (cause he did his time), 30% said no, 19% didnt know.
To be clear: I do not condone what this athlete has done, he shouldn't have interacted with a minor and definitely shouldn't have flown over to the UK to meet her, let alone have sex with her. But I also do not see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to compete. In his profession he doesn't interact with young girls. Neither does he at the Olympics.