Not defending him, I can't stand the man to be honest, but:
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He's not been. Thus you can't go bandying the word rape about. Similarly, if a teacher was arrested for sexual abuse of a child, you can't call him anything until it's been proven. Because the ACCUSATION is bigger than anything else and causing more reputational damage that anything else. You're not a child, nor a vigilante. Wait until things are proven in a court of law (ANY court of law will suffice) and then you can claim you know better about what you'd do.
He has denied the claim (notice: not a charge!). He is fighting extradition on the basis that the claim is false. If the US, say, falsely accuse you of rape, are you going to pop over and clear your name and thus surrender to their legal system or argue that you shouldn't have to be extradited there at all? Some would say that going over would be a sign that you believe there are valid charges to be faced. This is no difference, and the US is involved even if it's not as direct.
You're trying to paint him, obliquely, as a rapist. He's not. Because he's not been charged with that or had it proven and, to be honest, is in the legal system to stop those charges taking action (which he couldn't do if they had a really solid case against him) based on both UK and EU law saying there's not enough to extradite him on.
Reading anything into anything he does at the moment is actually WORSE than just assuming nothing. It's like taking "No Comment" to mean "I did it" - although the phrase is used as a mechanism by the guilty, innocent people are well-advised to use it by their lawyers because it's the SAFEST thing, legally, to say.
You're exposing your own bias. Just because you'd submit to a random foreign country trying to extradite you on false charges in order to clear your name (and, just for a minute, suppose that country was somewhere with a bit less of a reliable court system), doesn't mean that every "innocent" person should either. Hell, I'd fight extradition on the basis that I'm already in an EU country and the trial could be held in any EU country because they have the same laws (and, often, cases are tried in one country using the laws and jurisdiction of another because it aids the logistical parts of the problems involved) and / or they haven't filed charges (which they should do if they want to see me in court). I can be questioned, even under arrest, from anywhere in the world. Hell, I can appear in court in any country in the world by video-link if necessary.
But, for some strange reason, these rape ALLEGATIONS are not being backed up as they should be, not being enforced as they should be, not being taken as seriously in the country trying to extradite him as they should be (if they think he's the rapist, he could be charged, tried and even sentenced already and in his absence rather than drag it out for the victim). And people like you take the words "rape allegation" and only see "RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE". Rather than, as you should "allegation" (i.e. completely without proof as of yet).