If I, as Oiselle's legal counsel, had explained the law and risks to my client as you did earlier in this thread, and my client had then proceeded to act as Oiselle did in this case, I would be scared stiff right now, because I would probably have committed malpractice. I would probably have to notify my liability insurance carrier that there are potential claims against my firm, and if either USATF or Nike chose to sue my client, the costs and liabilities of that litigation could (depending upon Oiselle's financial situation) push my client into insolvency, in which case my firm and I could become liable for, among other things, whatever market value might be assigned to Oiselle if none of this had happened. I'm sure that various colleagues would try to comfort me by insisting that it's very unlikely that either USATF or Nike would choose to file suit, but I guarantee you that I would be worried sick today.
The Lanham Act provides for a wider range of monetary remedies than you have recognized; the district court has significant discretion in fashioning remedies, and might choose to exercise such discretion where the violation was plainly willful and the motivation for the violation was (as you apparently believe) nothing more than pure provocation of a competitor. Perhaps more importantly, even if the monetary remedies were very limited, the near certainty of a finding of liability could force the case to trial after extensive pretrial proceedings (since there would be little hope of a successful dispositive pretrial motion in defendant's favor), with litigation costs that could sink a weakly capitalized company.
Furthermore, as the cease-and-desist letter notes, claims here would not be limited to the Lanham Act. State statutory and common-law claims would also be available, and some of those statutes provide for statutory (in addition to or in lieu of actual) damages, penalties, and attorney fees. I'm pretty sure that some of those statutes also provide for punitive damages, which would presumably be available under the common law in any event.
Assuming that Oiselle doesn't engage in further shenanigans, I very much doubt that either Nike or USATF will pursue litigation for this single act. But if Oiselle doesn't start acting like a grown-up, it may get swatted at some point, like an annoying little housefly.
By the way, although I haven't seen the doctored photo, Oiselle's CEO says that the Nike swoosh was replaced by the logos for Asics, Brooks, Oiselle, and New Balance -- "the sponsors that the athletes actually run for." Do you think that any of those other three companies would do something like this, using this same doctored photo? I don't, and it's not because Oiselle is edgier or more courageous or some such thing. It's because those companies recognize that this is serious business for grown-ups, and grown-ups are expected to follow the law or risk serious adverse consequences.
Finally, I would not assume, as you have, that any willful infringement here was merely for purposes of provocation and consequent publicity. As an earlier poster noted, Oiselle's CEO has previously criticized the USATF-Nike deal, intelligently and cogently. I suspect that this photo had something to do with frustration associated with that deal. But without the clear context of an intelligent discussion of those concerns, Oiselle's publication of such a photo is, in my view, a silly act that poses easily avoidable and unnecessary risks.