diff --git a/local-cluster/tests/local_cluster_flakey.rs b/local-cluster/tests/local_cluster_flakey.rs
index 4f3a98463a8fed..88a87b27a49dc2 100644
--- a/local-cluster/tests/local_cluster_flakey.rs
+++ b/local-cluster/tests/local_cluster_flakey.rs
@@ -38,27 +38,6 @@ fn test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_without_tower() {
     do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower(false);
 }
 
-enum RunResult {
-    Success,
-    FailNoViolation,
-    FailViolation,
-}
-
-fn do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower(with_tower: bool) {
-    let mut retry = 10;
-    while retry > 0 {
-        match do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower_inner(with_tower) {
-            RunResult::Success => {
-                return;
-            }
-            _ => {
-                retry -= 1;
-            }
-        }
-    }
-    panic!("optimistic confirmation violation with or without tower failed after 10 trial");
-}
-
 // A bit convoluted test case; but this roughly follows this test theoretical scenario:
 //
 // Step 1: You have validator A + B with 31% and 36% of the stake. Run only validator B:
@@ -99,9 +78,7 @@ fn do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower(with_tower: b
 // With the persisted tower:
 //    `A` should not be able to generate a switching proof.
 //
-fn do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower_inner(
-    with_tower: bool,
-) -> RunResult {
+fn do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower(with_tower: bool) {
     solana_logger::setup_with_default(RUST_LOG_FILTER);
 
     // First set up the cluster with 4 nodes
@@ -369,17 +346,13 @@ fn do_test_optimistic_confirmation_violation_with_or_without_tower_inner(
     let expects_optimistic_confirmation_violation = !with_tower;
     if bad_vote_detected != expects_optimistic_confirmation_violation {
         if bad_vote_detected {
-            error!("No violation expected because of persisted tower!");
-            return RunResult::FailNoViolation;
+            panic!("No violation expected because of persisted tower!");
         } else {
-            error!("Violation expected because of removed persisted tower!");
-            return RunResult::FailViolation;
+            panic!("Violation expected because of removed persisted tower!");
         }
     } else if bad_vote_detected {
         info!("THIS TEST expected violations. And indeed, there was some, because of removed persisted tower.");
     } else {
         info!("THIS TEST expected no violation. And indeed, there was none, thanks to persisted tower.");
     }
-
-    RunResult::Success
 }