IF Ched Evans wants to clear his name after his rape conviction, let him try to do so under the law.

Until then, I cannot think why any football club would allow him back on the pitch in their colours.

As things stand, the situation is clear. Evans is a convicted rapist.

Whether he likes it or not, whether he agrees with the definition of rape as defined in law in this country or not.

A conviction for such a serious crime brings with it serious consequences.

The idea that somehow he should be afforded more privileges than anyone else in his position because of the job that he did, or because of his "fame", is sickening.

Most companies who employ staff have a clause in their contracts by which anyone convicted of a serious criminal offence can be dismissed for gross misconduct.

I cannot imagine that most employers would not look at the conviction and have high in their minds the duty of care which they have to other members of staff - particularly women.

I cannot imagine that they would simply tell a convicted rapist that he could come along and use their facilities and have his name still linked with their company's without thinking through the consequences of their actions.

So I have little sympathy with the view espoused by the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA).

Former Wales player Evans was released from prison last month after serving half of a five-year sentence following his conviction for raping a 19-year-old woman in Rhyl.

He has always maintained his innocence despite being found guilty by a jury at Caernarfon Crown Court in April 2012 and is currently appealing to the Criminal Cases Review Commission over the conviction.

Sheffield United last week withdrew the club's controversial offer for the former player to use their facilities for training purposes following objections from high profile supporters such as Jessica Ennis-Hill - who was then subjected to a rape threat online - and The Beautiful South's Paul Heaton.

Many Sheffield United fans are, understandably, relieved by the club's decision.

TV presenter Charlie Webster, who resigned as a patron of Sheffield United after the club allowed Evans to return for training, responded on Twitter to the news the club had withdrawn its training offer: "Sheffield United have done the right thing by not letting Ched Evans train with them. It's the right thing for the club, its fans, its community and the victim.

"(Sheffield United) is a great club with a fantastic history and now its future can be fantastic too."

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is MP for Sheffield Hallam, tweeted: "A sensible decision by Sheffield United regarding Ched Evans. Step in the right direction."

The PFA responded that it may be to the benefit of the club and Evans for the offer to be retracted, but added that it hopes the 25-year-old will "be given an opportunity at another club".

It said: "We fully understand and respect the opposing views to Ched's return to Sheffield United and clearly part of the issue related to him returning to the club he was previously with at the time of his imprisonment.

"With that in mind, it may ultimately be of benefit to both parties to move on and for Ched to look for a fresh start at a different club.

"We maintain our general position that the courts determine punishments and a return to society and a contribution to the community through employment is a key element of rehabilitation.

"We do not agree that society should impose different rules for footballers which go beyond the position of the law. In that regard, it is hoped that Ched will be given an opportunity at another club to return to the job he is trained to do."

Why should another club be expected to give Evans any kind of opportunity while he is questioning his conviction?

How can he be "rehabilitated" when he still denies the offence?

He has his right to a case review like any other member of the public convicted of an offence in this country.

And like any other member of the public he must wait for the outcome of that review - instead of trying to win some battle for public opinion outside the courts.

There can be no "fresh start" until the result of that review