Just because something has been done before doesn't inherently make it a wise thing to do.
You can not use the eventual outcome of a scenario as a determining factor of its "appropriateness". You can only use the information known prior to the outcome.
If you can't see the obvious parallels in these cases then you are blinded by the black and gold glasses.
If you ask me, standing in an extended boom in 60 mph wind is as asinine as trying to squat a percentage of my body weight ~ 100 times. They both sound like incredibly stupid ideas for me to attempt and I would be equally fearful for my safety in both scenarios.
The fact that someone died or was "only" hospitalized doesn't change the inherent risk that was ignored in both scenarios.
In both scenarios a coach evaluated the potential risk of the situation and based on past experience decided it was safe to proceed.
Both scenarios involved students who did things at the direction of their coaches that they would not have done on their own accord.
Both scenarios involved students who, after becoming involved and realizing the intensity of the situation, made the personal decision to continue doing the activity they were doing.
The kid was not forcibly confined to the boom. He entered the boom on his own accord at the direction of a coach/manager. If he felt uncomfortable once in the lift he could have gotten down instead of taking to facebook/twitter to express his concerns for his safety.
The players were not forcibly strapped to a squat bar. They participated in the exercise on their own accord at the direction of a coach/manager. If they felt uncomfortable they could have stopped the exercise instead of pushing themselves to the point of physical harm.
All parties were culpable in these scenarios.
A proverb from King Solomon..."the prudent see danger and seek refuge, the simple keep going and suffer for it."
The "fault" is on those who ignored the apparent danger presented and decided to do nothing and just kept going.